iNow

Something being unuseful doesn’t negate something being valid and accurate. It would actually have been made well before that, and if we have a complete enough set of information available then I suggest we COULD determine that response of the audience member in advance (and in fact we’re already doing something quite similar in laboratory conditions with a high degree of accuracy with electrodes and real-time measurement devices connected)

I would not call this freedom, only highlight that even in a deterministic world there is still some quantum weirdness and probabilistic / nondeterministic activities at the smallest scales. Eventually, those random micro events will aggregate and effect macro scale events, especially in context of the vast epochs of time and universe-level distances under consideration. To be clear, I'm not suggesting strong effects of quantum randomness in human behaviors and thought (which I lean heavily toward being deterministic at our scale). Again from my link above: Where I remain unclear in understanding the position of others who say we DO have free will: ("Free will is always a "conditioned" free will: conditioned by external circumstances, but also by your own (true) beliefs, values, motivations, reasons, etc. And if you can act according to them, your action is free, so you have free will")... is how they square such a conclusion with the fact that we are meat robots ourselves guided by the laws of physics. Our quarrel seems to be semantic, calling this free when it is deterministic.

Does it matter when viewed in context of the validity of my point? Yes, though. What you mention is no different. Fire walkers also will involuntarily leap from the coals if they remain there too long (unless they pass out first and collapse into them). A good overview of a good book on the subject here: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/10/22/robert-sapolsky-gets-interviewed-about-his-new-book-on-free-will-and-determinism/

What makes you think this choice wasn’t made before you even became aware of it? The data suggests it is and that our minds just apply a post-dictive narrative to explain it in such a way that we think we were in control. Also, at some point you will lack the will to continue holding the poker. Your body will let go of it for you. That doesn’t sound free to me. This is literally impossible.

I'm in a rush, so I'm not being as precise as I'd like here, but... The view which resonates most with me involves the unconscious firing of neural systems. The decisions and triggers of our behaviors get made outside of our awareness of them, the decision happens BEFORE entering the parts of our minds considered "self." I am separating "me" from my body, which is obviously problematic. Eise rightly comments that when my entire being is considered as a whole, it was this whole which made the decision to act in a free way therefore our will is itself also free... despite the decision occurring prior to any awareness or prefrontal involvement (I'm paraphrasing, so apologies for any misrepresentations... they're not intentional nor intended to strawman). I follow this by reminding that the nature of these neural patterns involve multiple other organisms living within us, with a primary focus on the gut microbiota. There are a multitude of factors involved that cannot reasonably considered to be part of "me" or my "self." Far beyond microbiota in our guts are similar situational inputs like hunger, dehydration, sleep, environment, noise, and various stimuli which very much influence the way we respond and act every moment of every day, and generally all of these lay outside of our control. This leads me to conclude that calling this process in any way a "free" one is a mistake, and the concept of "freedom" that I hold in no legitimate way applies here IMO. We are not free, but instead are subject to these chemical interactions and aggregate patterns. I feel this deeply myself as a diabetic who is often hypoglycemic and become a totally different person akin to Jeckyl and Hyde. Eise then replies that despite these observations it is still the whole "self" acting in accordance with these patterns and therefore that whole self is acting in a free way. At the end of the day, he is better equipped to defend his stance and is a far better philosopher than myself. I just arrive at a different conclusion from him. I can't bring myself to call it free when so many external stimuli (biome, environment, availability of food and water, absence of stressors and illness or viruses, blood glucose levels, vitamin and minerals access, etc.) very much dictate what is happening from moment to moment with our decisions, choices, and behaviors... as all of those things restrict our freedom and cause us to act in ways outside of our "will." My definition of self and freedom and will are what seem to differ from his, but I very much respect his stance despite our different conclusions.

That’s not how intend to allocate my own freewill right now. If you interpret that as me conceding, I have no quarrel with that. My core point is that context matters and there’s more than one viable path available to pursue on this.

That’s fairly awesome. And here I only have two

In neurobiology, it’s sometimes useful to look at where brain activity occurred BEFORE any awareness of it arose. In criminal law, it’s not that useful to look at the neural level since we’re reviewing the impact of one’s actions on others in society. In terms of healthcare, there are the issues of will to heal and placebo effects. There are others, and as I said, context matters. I’m not as convinced as you that there is only one valid way of considering this issue, but I do respect your stance and the force with which you so ably defend it. When did the topic under discussion here change from free will instead to consciousness?

I find them all to be pretty arbitrary What matters most IMO is:

Unless, of course, that’s how we frame the discussion to be useful in specific contexts. You may disagree or legitimately dismiss them as specious, but it can, in fact, be defined in other ways.

Yes, still

It all comes down to how one defines free will, and how we define the self / the being whose will is being described

He’s posting the same thing on other sites

ohh... kay...

Of course, but the billionaire can barely care about the loss or gain of a penny. The issue here is one of scale. All systems are relevant, but some are marginal enough to be mostly dismissed in this context. Janus is far more capable than me of responding, just adding my own thoughts to this particular critique which strikes me as somewhat specious.

That's a mighty big assumption, and you know what they say about people who assume... asses, you's, and me's... Studies seem to suggest we gain more joy from the anticipation of the event or trip or vacation (from the "hoping" and "planning" and "considering in advance") than we gain from the experience itself (the winning and the doing/going, etc.). It stands to reason that thinking of freedom and considering all the myriad ways we're already free may bring greater wellbeing than the freedom itself. The underlying concept is described as anticipatory joy. It's like a forward looking rumination, but with a positive emotional valance.

That’s what she said

They’re called universities

You assume we "know we can't have" freedom, and I reject that as specious to the point of defeatism. Hope springs eternal

Even if one assumes design, this question remains. How was the designer developed? If you can assume a "designer" just is, why not assume the same thing for the universe itself? It involves fewer variables and therefore has fewer assumptions / is more likely to be correct. It's turtles all the way down.

Who says we don't fight for it? Do we not understand what it means and feels like for us personally? Regardless of these answers, it's an issue of values and self-identity. Like terminates constructing a nest or huge mound, we shape the world around us in accordance with our genetic predispositions and needs of the society around us. Just because not all "nests" and "mounds" are physical, tangible, or visible (freedom and love still exist as concepts even though I cannot touch and feel them, after all), that doesn't mean that we as biological organisms aren't still striving toward those shapes, patterns, and outcomes in our day to day behaviors. We "fight" for freedom for the same reason we "fight" for food and shelter, it's just at a different layer of the hierarchy proposed by Maslow.

It depends on the dataset used to train the model and how the question is asked

Thank you for the correction

It’s not an EV specific phenomenon, but a cross industry upward trend in insurance rates across regions (tied to inflation and supply limitations). Focusing on EVs specifically is more BS propaganda. This example from the US is similar to what’s being encountered across many parts of the world also struggling with inflationary pressure and supply chain friction)

Lebanon/ Hezbollah already weighing in, too. Cue MBS form Saudi Arabia to swoop in as newly appointed regional power center and make a deal, quiet all parties, and position selfs as place where cooler financially minded heads prevail. Still watching China and Taiwan, too… Easier to pull shenanigans when everyone’s distracted. Also watching impact from lack of GOP House Speaker preventing ability of US Congress to approve funding for help, and how it impacts new Speaker vote.