Rainbow Dash

Ok, but would we be able to tell what someone's choice will be before they make the choice in that scenario? In the future, please use either Java or C#. I don't speak this language

Ok, by perfect information I mean perfect knowledge of the current state of the universe. The state of the universe includes matter, energy and consciousness. I am not necessarily including knowledge of future states of the universe. Sorry I miscommunicated. Can you please specify what you mean by considerations? What is this external source you speak of?

knowable and unknowable is a dichotomy, therefor the future is knowable given perfect information (determinism) and the future is unknowable given perfect information (true random) is a dichotomy. (the definition for determinism and true random I gave are identical except one uses knowable and the other uses unknowable, in case that helps you make the connection for the case I am making) Edit: to make it abundantly clear, for something to be neither deterministic nor true random by the definitions I gave, the future would have to be neither knowable nor unknowable given perfect information, which is a contradiction. The reason I used random and determinism from an individual's perspective is because it shows my argument works no matter what perspective you look from. Suppose I am an omniscient being that knows everything that is knowable. Random from my perspective (meaning the future is unknown to me) would be your definition of true random. If I am an omniscient being can perfectly predict the future, then the only way I could have predicted the future was if the universe had some way of determining the future state from current state, which would be an example of determinism. If you take my argument and substitute "perspective from an individual" with the more specific example "perspective from an omniscient being with perfect knowledge", I think I make a good case for how the universe must have either true random or true determinism. Ok, I think that fixed it, sorry for my carelessness.

The reason I used random and determinism from an individual's perspective is because it shows my argument works no matter what perspective you look from. Suppose I am an omniscient being that knows everything that is knowable. Random from my perspective (meaning the future is unknown to me) would be your definition of true random. If I am an omniscient being can perfectly predict the future, then the only way I could have predicted the future was if the universe was just input in then output out, which would be an example of determinism. If you take my argument and substitute "perspective from an individual" with the more specific example "perspective from an omniscient being with perfect knowledge", I think I make a good case for how the universe must have either true random or true determinism. Determinism means the future is knowable given perfect information. True random means the future is not knowable given perfect information. That would logically mean that it impossible for something, including free will, to be neither deterministic nor true random. The only way this could not be contradictory is if being unknowable is required for but is not sufficient for being true random, which if is the case, I would like a better definition of true random.

In my previous post I explained how I logically concluded how free will must be random. If there is a flaw in my argument please point it out to me so I can stop wasting everyone's time.

Those videos still don't answer the main problem I have with free will, which I am sorry if I haven't explained it well enough before. I will explain: Everything that happens fits in to one of two categories: either I knew for certain beforehand that it would happen, or I didn't know for certain beforehand that it would happen. If I knew for certain beforehand then it must have been deterministic. If I didn't know beforehand, then from my perspective it was random. For example, since I can't calculate the result of a coin flip before it hits the ground, coin flips are random to me, even though coin flips are considered physically deterministic. Since all actions must fit into one of these two categories I described, and you already explained that free will and determinism can't coexist, that only leaves the possibility that free will is random from an individual's perspective. Is free will actually a form of randomness (by how I described it), or did I make a mistake?

Some scientists believe that quantum particles behave randomly. If that is true then at any given moment a quantum particle could have behaved differently then it did in the past.

I think we need to clarify what we mean by subjective and objective. The existence of the color red, is this objective or subjective.If nobody can see red, then does red still exist? Edit: I did some quick research on objectivity, and this may be as complicated as free will. This definition of free will could possibly apply to quantum particles.

Some questions I have for those on the free will side: If you somehow discovered that free will did not exist, how would that change how you live your life? If you found out that certain animals had free will, how would that change how you live your life? If a deterministic robot could experience consciousness the same way we humans can, would we be morally obligated to treat it a certain way?

I don't know what you mean by standard of truth. truth is just a concept that is applied to propositions.

yes. If everyone actually sees him and everyone gives consistent descriptions to what he looks like where and what he is then yes. The only alternative is that everyone is insane.

No. If everyone shares the same subjective experience, then it becomes objective. If everyone sees the same tree, then that tree's existence is objectively true in addition to being subjectively true to each individual person that sees it. I don't have a problem with feeling a pain, having a belief, desire etc causing more neural activity. The problem is that having a pain, having a belief, desire etc, are determined by neural activity, thus determinism.

What is wrong with these standards being subjective? I will elaborate. Consciousness is not just dependent on neurons, it is completely determined by it.

These standards such as reason, evidence and truth, are a part of consciousness, and consciousness is dependent on neurons.

What do you mean by standard? And why must it have a standard?

It results from neurons behaving in a deterministic way.

I believe the difference between a calculator and a human is consciousness, not free will. Consciousness is what is required for the type of understanding you described.

Why can't reasoning through to a conclusion be a deterministic process?

Constants by definition will always be the same thus is always true therefor a tautology I don't understand why you assume that animals have zero rationality behind their morality. As for knowing the difference between right and wrong, do psychopaths who can't distinguish right from wrong not have free will, and therefor not morally responsible for their actions?

I didn't realize by "able to perfectly predict the future" you meant, understand that tautologies are always true. It seams misleading. How do you know animals can't do this. It used to be thought that humans were the only animals that could use tools and that was what separated us from other animals. We now know that other animals use tools too. If it was discovered that animals did have this ability to conceptualize in unchanging abstracts, what would that change? Here is an interesting video on morality observed in animals, in case you are interested: Also, not all humans base their decisions and beliefs on universal ideals. Does that mean that some humans don't have free will?

I think this helps add clarity to your position. Yes I do believe that the second statement can be more accurately explained with a lower level description, we just don't know what it is. Based on this explanation of free will, I don't understand how morality is dependent on whether or not this free will exists.

Our minds can't predict the future perfectly.

My future behavior is always changing. As you notice I post something different every time. I change my own behavior the same way a rock changes its momentum and collisions with other objects. Don't worry, I don't abuse dogs. I was just to[o] lazy to come up with a better example. I just wanted to quickly get my idea across.

Whether or not your arguments are intentional are irrelevant. Whether or not you had a choice is irrelevant. It is like when a dog poops in the house, you say something like "bad dog! don't do that" and perhaps give it some sort of punishment, not because the dog had free will and could have chosen not to poop in the house and is morally responsible for its actions, but because you want to correct its future behavior. I told you what to do in an attempt to improve your future behavior, regardless of whether or not you have free will.

Speak for yourself. I don't experience myself as an intentional causal agent. Thoughts just pop up in my mind and I have a tendency to act in congruence with those thoughts.