compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

It can be random and it can be not random. So overall it's not random.

I don't see why overall it's not random. If it's sometimes random, why is it overall not random?
And why are we rolling our eyes now?

Because you are free to choose to have reasons which makes it not random.

And I'm rolling my eyes because at this point you're like VA with his "God is impossible" or "realism is impossible" crusades. Let's destroy the concept of free will.

So when you chose that number you made 2 choices? One to be random and then another to choose the number itself?

I don't really know what your second paragraph means at all tbh

[Age]

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

So what leads to the *one choice* then? That's what he's asking.

Free will

And, what is 'free will', exactly, again, to you?

[Age]

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

Exactly, but then 'want' is connected to desire, goals and motivation and what one knows.

If I ask what leads to the choice, your answer 'free will' doesn't make sense.

Free will is part of the context, but it doesn't lead to any particular choice, which was why I asked for a specfic choice from you earlier. You can break all physical laws, you in the moment you receive my message are asked what will you do next. Any specific answer will have to do with wants, even the perverse want to do what you don't want to do, which is still a want. If one is not hindered in any way at all by the rules of the universe, and you choose based, then, on what you want, then wants determine choices.

A: What leads you to choose out of all the possible actions - free from all physical law restraints - one action?
B: Free will.
Actually, no. It's not free will that leads to the specific choice.

But you're assuming I have no free will to make any choice. It's circular reasoning.

Are you claiming that you have free will to make absolutely any choice at all?

If yes, then is this circular reasoning?

If no, then why not?

Also, if you are claiming that you have free will to make absolutely any choice, then what are you basing this on, exactly?

[Atla]

I don't see why overall it's not random. If it's sometimes random, why is it overall not random?
And why are we rolling our eyes now?

Because you are free to choose to have reasons which makes it not random.

And I'm rolling my eyes because at this point you're like VA with his "God is impossible" or "realism is impossible" crusades. Let's destroy the concept of free will.

So when you chose that number you made 2 choices? One to be random and then another to choose the number itself?

I don't really know what your second paragraph means at all tbh

Free will is a simple philosophical idea, why are you so freaked out by it?

[Flannel Jesus]

Because you are free to choose to have reasons which makes it not random.

And I'm rolling my eyes because at this point you're like VA with his "God is impossible" or "realism is impossible" crusades. Let's destroy the concept of free will.

So when you chose that number you made 2 choices? One to be random and then another to choose the number itself?

I don't really know what your second paragraph means at all tbh

Free will is a simple philosophical idea, why are you so freaked out by it?

I don't understand why you think anything I've said indicates a "freaking out". Why are you freaking out from the words I'm saying.

I also think you're the last person to vouch for how simple it is, given your understanding is clearly drastically different from just about everyone else's.

[Atla]

So when you chose that number you made 2 choices? One to be random and then another to choose the number itself?

I don't really know what your second paragraph means at all tbh

Free will is a simple philosophical idea, why are you so freaked out by it?

I don't understand why you think anything I've said indicates a "freaking out". Why are you freaking out from the words I'm saying.

I think we're done here.

[Age]

Just out of curiosity, do you personally think we live in a world with some randomness? Or is it completely deterministic? And how, in your view, does QM relate to the determinism-or-indeterminism of the universe?

There probably is some randomness. The usual example is radioactive decay. Scientists who have studied it (more than me), seem to unable to find any direct causes for the timing of any particular decay.

Could any presumption that there was, or was meant to be, some particular timing of decay been a 'random' presumption, itself?

Or, was 'that presumption' pre-determined, to happen, and occur?

I don't have much interest in QM.

For any one interested there is absolutely no, actual, 'randomness' in the perceived smaller scale of things, just like there is absolutely no, actual, inconsistencies anywhere between some perceived 'smaller scale' and 'larger scale' of things. In fact there is no, actual, separation of things here. All just work, or behave, in the exact same way. Some things are 'just around for', or exist, longer than other things do.

[Age]

Redefining key philosophical concepts to suit your needs is called sophistry.

What is sacred about definitions?

If a definition isn't useful, then changing it is perfectly reasonable.

Also, some words are abstract pointers rather than concretely defined things. I make a word, say "jrumbo", and I say "it's that thing" and I point to some new thing, even before I know what that thing is. Jrumbo is a pointer-word, that points to some thing, right? It means "whatever that thing is".

Then some person, say Pete, later gets a strong idea of what "that thing" is and they come up with a more specific description of what they think "that thing" is, and then they decide "jrumbo is defined as this sentence I think describes 'that thing'".

But what if they got it wrong? What if their description of "that thing" ISN'T the actual thing "that thing" is? Well, not we're in this awkward situation where "jrumbo" means 2 things - it means "that thing" AND it means "the thing Pete thinks that thing is". But why should Pete have a monopoly and trying to figure out and describe what "that thing" is? Especially when half the people around think he got it wrong?

But, who ever thought, let alone presumed or believed that "pete" had a monopoly, here?

And, why did absolutely any one think, presume, or believe that "pete" had a monopoly, here?

After all, "that thing" still exists, and if other people have different ideas of what "that thing" is, they ought to have the right to give their own alternative ideas of what that thing is, and since "jrumbo" means "whatever that thing is", then these other ideas can be viable alternative definitions of jrumbo.

Giving libertarians a monopoly on the meaning of "free will" is a mistake.

Just out of curiosity, who and/or what is a "libertarian", exactly?

And, if you like I can explain, fully, why there is, actually, no such thing as a so-called "libertarian".

[Age]

Free will

You just said it doesn't lead to a specific choice. You must be trolling at this point.

It would help if I knew what exactly you guys are asking?

I will make this very simple, and very easy, for you:

What do the words 'free will' mean, or refer to, to you, exactly?

By the way, you accused another of 'circular reasoning' here. From what you are trying to claim above here, then I think you are providing a much better and clearer example of 'circular reasoning'. But, here you are able to remove what I think here by just defining what 'free will' actually is, exactly, to you.

[Age]

It would help if I knew what exactly you guys are asking?

He makes one choice. He could have made many, sure, but he made one. Why did he make that one? You said free will doesn't lead to a specific choice already, so free will isn't the answer to the question. Why did he make that one?

Be more specific. What is the question?

I wonder if you will ignore 'my specific question', again.

[Flannel Jesus]

But, who ever thought, let alone presumed or believed that "pete" had a monopoly, here?

Literally everyone who gets annoyed about compatibilists having an adjusted definition of free will. Atla for example.

[Age]

Free will.

I'm refreshing you on the context of this conversation. You said the thing that leads to option 235, which is a *specific choice*, is free will. But then you said free will doesn't lead to a specific choice. Surely you see why Iwannaplato and I aren't finding that very satisfactory, right? If free will doesn't lead to a specific choice, then free will alone didn't lead to 235.

what would lead you to pick option 235?

I said free will leads to any specific choice, including 235, not just a single specific one. Are you asking why 235 and not 236 or any other one? Because 235 was chosen out of free will.

What is the question?

'This one' deceives so often, and so much, that it might not even realize that it does it.

It is like how some people lie so much, and/or so often, that they, really, do not even know that they are lying.

[Flannel Jesus]

"This one" could refer for me or atla. Just say who you're talking about. If you reply to atlq and you mean atla, say you. If you mean me, say flannel Jesus. You want to learn how to communicate more clearly, this is part of it.

[Age]

Maybe, maybe not. You have free will so I guess you can freely choose with or without reason.

Is there a reason why you'd choose without a reason?

I don't think there has to be - maybe I'm even doing it right now without knowing.

And, this one, continually, 'tries to' claim that it is 'I' who does not know what 'I' talk about.

[Age]

But, if I had done that earlier, then I would have missed out on a lot of what I have wanted to show, and reveal, here.

you've failed to reveal anything interesting to anybody with all that.

Once again, what I want to, and am, showing and revealing was never intended for you, personally, nor for anyone else posting here, in this forum.

Again, If you just stopped 'assuming things', and just starting 'asking questions', with absolute openness and curiosity, then you could, and would, be the very first one to actually recognize and see what I am actually showing, and revealing, here, in 'my way'.