What are you trying to do?

https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1fcksqa/what_are_you_trying_to_do/

created by diogenesthehopeful on 09/09/2024 at 08:48 UTC

1 upvotes, 5 top-level comments (showing 5)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/[1][2]

1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/

2: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/

Assuming everybody is here debating in good faith, are you using the word random to clarify anything? I challenge you to use this link to clarify your position when you use the word random. I cannot seem to do it using the link. Listed are:

what people normally mean
What scientists mean
the commonplace thesis
the "redefined " commonplace thesis (RCT)

Clearly the word random meets some challenges and a lot of posters here seem to think these debates are about semantics, which I think is a resolvable issue among participants. Therefore what are you trying to accomplish by posting on this sub?

Comments

Comment by LokiJesus at 09/09/2024 at 12:37 UTC

3 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Too bad there's not an option for "all of the above."

Comment by mildmys at 09/09/2024 at 09:25 UTC*

4 upvotes, 0 direct replies

"what are you trying to do"

Diogenes it's time... I'm going to reveal my secret.🤫

I'm actually a government trained psi-operative, I am here tasked with convincing full blooded, white American males that they don't have free will to take away their FREEDOM🦅🦅🦅

I'm sorry it has to be this way😔

are you using the word random to clarify anything?

As for this, I'll call on the definition that spgrk uses for random: "an outcome that could go otherwise given identical starting conditions". This is also what random/indeterministic means in quantum mechanics.

It makes sense, a truly random dice roll will yield different results even with a perfectly identical start to the roll (i don't actually think this is possible for a dice, just an example)

And so libertarian free will falls apart to me because the ability to do otherwise given an identical situation, would be a random selection.

Comment by gimboarretino at 09/09/2024 at 09:10 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Therefore what are you trying to accomplish by posting on this sub?

Interesting question. Mainly, a combination of intellectual-dialectical fun + challenging hypotheses/convictions and seeking new suggestions/ideas.

Secondly, understanding.

Despite believing that one of the clearest truths (and perhaps the only empirical, observable lesson to be drawn from the phenomena “history of human thought”) is that ***truth is not compelling ******... I also think that the deterministic universe vs universe with free will is the fundamental debate.

if we disagree on this point, we potentially disagree *on everything*. These are two radically incompatible worldviews, and this incompatibility makes very complex to discuss a lot of key aspect of life (ethics, justice, interpretation of nature and biology, politics, etc.) because the axioms of each "side" are almost irreconcilable.

Therefore (despite the fact that there will never be unity of views, see above) it is important to at least UNDERSTAND the axioms and assumptions from which counterpart starts, because if there is not even such understanding, any discourse on other issues becomes in fact a debate between the deaf.

** many have interpreted this absence of foundation, this appart impossibility to universally agree on anything, as the absence of absolute truths, but I think instead that is a consequence of the fact that even truth does not determine us in a mandatory way. We can be confronted with the clearest, most obvious, inconstable truth of facts, and yet we have the power to say, *no, I don't agree, this is not the way things are, and I'll tell you why.*

Comment by Squierrel at 09/09/2024 at 10:19 UTC

2 upvotes, 2 direct replies

I don't understand this post. What does this confusion about randomness have to do with our motivation to debate here?

To me the concept of randomness is clear:

Every outcome unpredictable and **unintentional** is random.
Every outcome unpredictable and **intentional** is a choice.

Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 09/09/2024 at 09:09 UTC

1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

If you think another poster is trying to bad faith argue with you can choose to link back to this post as a point of reference after the voting closes. So I gave everyone nearly a week to weigh in here before the polling closes so we can get a reasonably good sample of what the regular posters think about using the word random to make their point. Also the comments will be open so you will have ample time to clear up the meaning of the word random in the comments section using the Standford Enclopedia of Philosophy as a point of reference. For example you could make a case why every poster ought to use the RCT as a definition for random. Or since the moderators might want to remove posts for "direct relevancy" reasons they can police the speech usage and define all of the terms. I've seen a sub where the mods literally listed what is meant by certain terms. I prefer more of a free for all but it is futile to get people to use your terminology. Some posters don't even care about the laws of physics enough to try to understand them, so I hardly think they will use terms according to any standard.

Perhaps "this poll" is a waste of time.