That doesnt disprove my point that it is still something understood.
Hence I am still waiting for the "why" behind your "must be" which I asked for already.premise four
"will" is the principle of intentional action and "free" is the attribute that says it is not determined to "this particular action"It is not saying it is free from a cause. It is saying it is free as regarding the choices available to effect.
an intentional act of will cannot be free from previous causeand any unintended consequence of an act of will cannot be considered intentionalin other wordsyour will is always bound to your identity which is comprised of biology + experience (which qualify as causes)will is by definition, causedyour intentional action may be imperfect (not achieving your ideal goal)but that imperfection does not make your will free
it is rather difficult to suggest "i understand the future"is equivalent to the much more plausible suggestion "i imagine the future"
biology and experiance are material causes. They have their effects on the person choosing. But because the will is part of the formal cause, biology and experiance do not determine the will directly. They can only influence it.
And I disagree that your identity is "biology+experiance"
I said We can understand future possible effects.
your "must be" is directed only to the foremost option.
do you think it is fair to say that GPT4 decides or chooses which next word to generate ?do you think it is fair to say that GOOGLE decides or chooses which links to list in response to your query and also decides or chooses the order of that list ?No. I do not.
The free will becomes a part of the primary cause by freely directing it to one of the various possible effects. It is not that it is free of the universal chain but rather it is one of the determining factors that results in a possible effect that the primary cause can cause and continues the universal chain on its way.
If you want, it is the thing that freely says "do this effect." That is why we hold people responsible for their actions. They directed a cause to a positive or negative effect. If the resultant effect was evil, they get punished. As in the case of willfull murder. If the resultant effect was not evil, as in the case of someone choosing a certain burger at the restuarant for the first time, we need not hold them accountable for any evil.
Similarly also, this choice of which effect is intentional. Meaning a person did it. If there is no intention, there is no immediate culpability to the effect. As in the case of motor accidents. Culpability is not determined by the fact that you crashed, it is determined by what you chose to do that caused the crash.
"Free will" as I am describing, is an essential part of the person, but not the person himself. You do know that you can have parts right? I am assuming you already know the different basic parts of your body. Would you say you are your eye? I do not think so.
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?Ability to choose, regardless of influence. Is one definition that I usually speak with.
what percentage of your will, roughly speaking, would you guess is influenced by your biology + experience ?
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?
i still think it's much more accurate to say we can imagine future possible effectssaying we can understand suggests some comprehensive knowledgeof something which, in this case, by definition does not currently exist
(IFF) an intentional act of will is initiated (THEN) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decision
how would you describe these types of sorting functions ?and how would you contrast them with how you describe human sorting functions ?
choosing between roughly equal options is not properly described as "an intentional act of will"
you keep using the word "freely" without indicating what exactly you believe it is "free" from
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?Ability to choose, regardless of influence. Is one definition that I usually speak with.this sounds like a violation of cause-and-effect
Are you an atheist?deist monist taoist
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?Intellect and will
That is why we are forced to say possible effects. We can know based reason, order, etc the effects. We do not know them as actually existing, we know them as possibly existing.
(IFF) an intentional act of will is initiated (THEN) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decisionDo you know what the conditions for an absolute necessity in logic?
how would you describe these types of sorting functions ?and how would you contrast them with how you describe human sorting functions ?Programming.There is no conscience intentions in computers.
choosing between roughly equal options is not properly described as "an intentional act of will"Why?You will say: "it must choose the best option"You are still insisting on your contradiction...
There are different senses to the word "free" It does not necessarily mean "free from"
The will is of the internal cause, namely the formal one. It can act independant of external causes.
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?Intellect and willwhat part of "intellect and will" are not included in biology + experience ?
