hotdaniel

there is a difference in agency where a human system bases its decisions on a large spatial, time range of experiences (moments to life-long experiences and multi-generation planning, tiny tools all the way to architecture planning, a large number of connections by multiple means to other humans' experiences) to make "decisions". What do you call that?

I would call this determinism as much as anything else. Whatever you discover by reflecting on memories, you make your decision based on those memories, ergo there was a reason that determined your choice.

Because it exists and if it's not called free will, that's probably the closest thing that scientifically can be measured and associated with "free will".

I would just agree that we have a "will". It's the "free" qualifier that's disputed.

We may just be "transistors" responding to the environment, but we are complex enough to introduce chaos by connecting lots of unrelated things to the point of being as close to being unpredictable as any random system in the universe.

Sorry, I can't agree. We have ignorance about the future, but that doesn't mean my decisions are undetermined. As far as I can tell, everything is either determined or not determined. If it's determined, then I was not free to choose it. If it's not determined, then it's random, in which case I again could not have freely chosen it. You seem to be moving towards compatibilism, which accepts determinism but believes determinism can still be compatible with a notion of free will, e.g. our ignorance of the future is what we mean by free will.

Personally, I think life is very interesting bring a wet robot! However, I understand why most reject the concept out of hand.

That's what it is to be a compatibilist. They are determinists who believe that there is still a meaningful use of the phrase free will, despite the apparent determinism of the universe. They would redefine free will to not mean I have the ability to supervene on the natural laws, but that when you make a decision absent certain forces compelling a particular choice, that's what we mean by free will.

For people arguing they have free will, they typically mean they have the ability to do other than what they did do. That is, whenever they make a choice, they do so under the belief that they could have, in principle, made a different choice. As far as science is concerned, such a free will does not exist, because the behaviors you exhibit appear to be completely explainable in terms of the environment impressing upon you, and the effects that impression has on your neural activity. There is no "you" making free decisions in this picture. There's just stuff bumping into other stuff, and how is that free?

Regarding a general consensus of free will, that's just not even an argument anyone should care about. Plenty of people are flatly told they have free will because, "they don't have a choice, God made them with free will". Others/most are simply uneducated or under-read on the subject. That's fine, but it doesn't mean their opinion should weigh on our conclusions. If you show most people an optical illusion and ask them if it appears to be moving, they'd say yes, even though science will tell you there's nothing moving.

I personally am a hard deterministic regarding free will. I think we have a will but nothing about it is free. It is subject to natural laws just as a rock rolling down a cliff. That's fine. There's a related philosophical position of compatibilism, which believes that we have a determined will, but that the truth of the determination does not undercut our ability to talk as if and use the phrase free will as if we really do have such a thing. In this sense, compatibilists would say we don't have the ability to do other than what we are determined to do, but since we might not yet know what we are determined to do, then that ignorance captures what is meant by free will. So compatibilists are determinists, they just think free will as a concept is compatible with that determinism.

You're absolutely insane. Terrorists invaded Israel and brutally killed 1500 people, and your response is, eh maybe it's not that bad. It's not about the volume of people killed, it's about the way they were killed and the sworn mission from Hamas to never stop. A mission they affirmed just a couple days ago when they announced they were not apologetic for their actions and they'd do it again. So, this is the response they'll get from Israel. In order for there to be peace, Hamas must be completely destroyed. You pretend that you don't support Hamas, but your eagerness to avoid any discussion of why Israel is doing what they're doing speaks to an irrational fixation. I doubt you're Palestinian or Israeli. You don't know what it's like living under hundreds of rockets launched at you every day, but you demand Israel return to that, and return to the threat of more terrorism on their civilians. They will not, and I don't see why I should prefer innocent Israelis dying over innocent Palestinians. If someone innocent is going to die, at least use their death in service of destroying terrorism so that one day there might be peace.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2023/11/01/hamas-official-promises-carry-out-oct-7-massacre-again-and-again-until-israels-annihilation/

You've just described a war. People die, yes. But it's not Israel stuffing babies in ovens, cutting unborn out of their mother's, torturing and raping families in front of each other, and on. Sorry you're upset about Palestinians dying. It's a sad thing. But it's not going to stop Israel from defending themselves against a threat sworn to destroy them and all Jews.

By your assertion, Hamas is an Israel puppet and this is their masterpiece coup de gras? I'm not sure why any of that would excuse literal terrorism? People are responsible for their own actions. The ones who invaded Israel and brutalized their citizens, are responsible. If Israel was supporting terrorism, it sure seems like that would have been the time to do something about it. But even if they were, the terrorists are still responsible for their actions. They could have chosen not to attack, but they didn't. This is the consequence. Gaza is still standing, despite how eager you and others are to see Israel raze it to dust.

What do frigging cooked babies atrocities matter in this context?

It means everything when the purpose of the conversation is to demonize Israel and ignore the motivation for their actions. It speaks to a level of barbarism far beyond what Israel would ever do, and again, despite how people on this forum want Israel to appear.

Imagine that instead of Arabs, Israel army bombed, say, the German city of Dresden, killing thousands of civillians because it's a neonazi hotspot where international refugee centers are attacked. Well all white people are the same. Fuck them, right?

Is Dresden harboring terrorists?? It makes a pretty big fucking difference.

Is she going to talk about Hamas putting babies in ovens and baking them to death?

Would those numbers you're citing be coming from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry? Are you literally taking the word of terrorists to try to make your point?

Palestinian defense force scrambling to find new ways to blame Israel anyways

Again and again, the pro-palestine comments show themselves to be nothing but demands Israel let themselves be endlessly attacked and destroyed. They have the right to defend themselves. This is what that looks like.

You destroy any threat to your survival and you're justified in doing it. No different than you or I. Hamas was and is responsible for their actions. They chose to never have peace. They chose war.

You imply the actions of Hamas are caused by Israel caging and poking them. It's excusatory. Hamas is responsible for their actions. They chose to murder babies. You know that. The more you ignore denouncing their actions, the more you support and sympathize with terrorists.

"I agree there are many innocent Palestinians who don't agree with this, but if you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves, we have the full right to do so," he added.

The comment no one in this community wants to respond to. Keep simping for terrorists and demanding Israel let themselves be destroyed.