[yor_on]

Think about it Sliffy.
Where is your choice if you have no arrow of time to 'create' it in?
Also called 'causality chains'.

[Joe L. Ogan]

Joe. I am willing to accept your definition if you will admit that this also means that my dog and the giant banana slug I just moved off the porch also have free will. If you don't agree, what is the difference. Steve

Hi, Steve.  I agree that your dog and your slog have free will within their limitations.  You are one of their limitations.  Thanks for comments

[sliffy]

yor_on,

you ask "where is my choice?"
i don't have choice... i'm a bio robot who makes his decisions by the input data getting on sense-organs in a ruled world

[SteveFish]

Joe, I am OK with such a loose definition, but I have one complaint. It was a banana slug, quite beautiful. I greatly expanded his/her free will for the future which would have been cut short by being stepped on. Steve

[Joe L. Ogan]

Joe, I am OK with such a loose definition, but I have one complaint. It was a banana slug, quite beautiful. I greatly expanded his/her free will for the future which would have been cut short by being stepped on. Steve

Hi, Steve.  Yes, I forgot to state that you are one of their assets also.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[yor_on]

We all have our own way of looking at reality.
And a free choice is something treated under an 'arrow of time'.
Without an arrow that concept loses its meaning.

It depends on how you define your 'system'
In yours?

Well, I'll leave that to your imagination.

[sliffy]

in my definition: i would have free will if my decision wouldn't be calculable
but i see my decisions calculable so i think that my will isn't free

how do you define free will?

[Geezer]

in my definition: i would have free will if my decision wouldn't be calculable
but i see my decisions calculable so i think that my will isn't free

I don't think they are calculable. I certainly cannot anticipate your future actions, and I doubt that you can either. Any calculation will result in an infinite number of possible actions, so we already know the answer before we do any calculation.

[sliffy]

Greezer,

i didn't say that you, me or the designer can calculate the future... "calculable" doesn't mean that anybody has the capability to calculate
calculable means that our system works by rules so it's condition in the future is determined
- do you understand now what i mean?
- do you still say that our universe's future is non-determined?
if yes, please explain why?

[Geezer]

It's not calculable if you can't predict the outcome.

For a system to be 100% predictable, it cannot react to any external variables, which means it must be entirely self contained.

Whenever a system has to react to external variables, the outcome cannot be 100% predictable. It's only possible to talk about the probability of certain outcomes.

[sliffy]

yes, you are right but not only our system is determined... the other layers which contain our universe are also determined
even the designer's world is determined

it's not an assumption to be predictable... it doesn' matter if the designer (or god) can compute the future or not... the whole existence works by rules >> everything is determined

[Geezer]

everything is determined

I don't think so. You can't even determine at precisely what temperature a simple thermostat will switch on or off.

The "I'm a computer" analogy isn't right either. Contrary to popular opinion, the outcome of any computer that reacts to external events is never 100% reliable, let alone predictable.

[rosy]

It's perfectly possible that everything is "determined", but that's not the same as "predictable".

The behaviour of the human brain may be determined by the physics/biochemistry/etc of its existing state, but even leaving out any other kind of consideration, ionising radiation, has the potential to alter the chemistry of the DNA and other reactions and thus, ultimately, alter behaviour. So although free will may be illusory, it's still impossible to calculate behaviour (even if it were possible to compile a complete model of the state of the brain at a partcicular instant, which it wouldn't be).

[sliffy]

rosy,

i agree... 
that's all i wanted to say... i don't say that you can predict the future... tis topic is not about that
i just say that if everything is determined than you have no free will
you are a robot

[sliffy]

Greezer,
you don't understand me... i didn't say that me or someone else can determine anything
the whole existense is determined... read rosy's post... you may will understand

[SteveFish]

Our brain is a physical entity that calculates and controls all our behavior and thought. It might make inaccurate or uninformed calculations, but it is the physical instrument of our behavior and thought. When parts of it are broken, we don’t work so well. So if anybody wishes to claim that this isn’t true and that this system is, somehow, working outside of causality please explain how this can work. Steve

[Geezer]

Greezer,
you don't understand me... i didn't say that me or someone else can determine anything
the whole existense is determined... read rosy's post... you may will understand

I was really objecting to your statement about "calculable".  I contend that is truly impossible because of quantization thresholds. It's not a question of the size of the computer available to do the calculation. That's why I rasied the very simple case of the thermostat.

[sliffy]

Greezer,
sorry for my bad english... it's maybe because of that
anyway do you agree with me?

if yes than we can go further...

we are a kind of robots... our free will is likely to the robot's >> determined
there are two things which determine our behavior
1. dna
2. circumstances

none of them is influenceable by me >> i am no responsible for my decisions in front of the designer
i am only responsible for the society >> for the laws which are necessary for working the system

[rosy]

none of them is influenceable by me >> i am no responsible for my decisions in front of the designer

You're arguing both a deterministic view of free will, and a designer?
Goodness.
Well, I suppose people have managed to believe for centuries in Calvinist pre-destination, so I shouldn't be surprised. But it seems to assume a pretty odd "designer".
Why on earth (or anywhere else..) bother to believe in such a being?

[sliffy]

i see everywhere the marks of an intelligent design
but it is not the issue of this topic