iNow

Not if you believe adding qualifiers like “restricted” or “conditioned” in front of the term “will” is an any way useful here

If every thought we have and every “decision” we make is just the outcome of chemical interactions which all occur before even becoming conscious or aware of them in the parts of our minds most commonly associated with “self,” well then I don’t suppose it matters whether some subset of them get classified as restricted or conditioned or whatever as they’re ALL restricted by the local configuration of the “thinker” and the basic laws of physics and chemistry.

Modal-mu (μ). Lambda-mu (μ). Google and wiki, they got you.

It seems redundant to carve out humans from the universe more broadly. We are components of that universe itself acting deterministically. Perhaps not a relevant point, but something I considered upon reading your post. We are the universe expressing itself as a human being for a little while. No need for that 2nd point, really.

You’re either unwilling or unable then to respond to the actual discussion taking place bc, what? You have hurt feelings and thin skin? Okay, whatever.

And AFAIK we’re talking here about free will in humans, not the technology underlying AI All you’ve done is restate your assertion. MJk asked how you knew. Would you like another try?

But hardly still a mystery. Some of us seem to comprehend those processes better than others.

This is a strange conclusion. Of course it is. There's still more to learn, but it's hardly an "unresolved mystery," and hasn't been for many decades. This is a nice summary, representative also of my stance. +1

Oh, so you’re the one.

I wasn’t describing trying to influence an outcome. I described being able to predict it in advance with a meaningful degree of accuracy.

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.