Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free will.

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 3:24:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

That is quite a realization for someone who continues to preach Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines and quotes their material even after being disfellowshipped and shunned by the Jehovah's Witnesses for the last 11 years with little hope of being reinstated.

With all the free will you exercised didn't seem to have done you any good either.

You remain divorced after 4 marriages and your children ignores you.
You remain disfellowshipped and shunned by the JW elders.
You engaged in unnatural sexual acts and called yourself a serial adulterer.
You remain financially strapped, your fund raising attempts all failed.
You are still on medication for your suicidal depressions.
You are now physically handicapped and live on disability assistance.
You haven't been laid in 15 years.
You live alone with a dog.
You turned to Jehovah,but your government handouts are paying your bills.
You are 67 and do not have any employable skills besides being too old to work.
You think jesus was an angel. Everyone knows he was a Jewish carpenters son.
You pray to Jehovah a meaningless name in the English language.
Last we heard you were raising money for a motorcycle because your old one had to be scrapped.
You failed to raise money on Gofundme.com so you could join Imelda after trying for several years.
You were looking for relationships on a free dating service Mingle2.com while still committed to marry Imelda.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 3:25:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

1) Because all other actions seem to be guided, on some level, by natural laws, and I see no reason to believe differently for humans.

2) Eternalism seems to be true, and that mean libertarian free will is impossible (as the future already exists).
With this understanding, let's do the following thought experiment.
A) Let's look at two universes, both where eternalism is true and where things are guided by natural laws.
B) Universe Alpha is a universe where free will exists. Universe Sigma is a universe where free will does not exist.
C) Since eternalism is true, we can already rule out libertarian free will from Universe Alpha, and therefore it must be a form of compatibalism.
D) Both are guided by natural laws and libertarian free will doesn't exist in either, so it isn't unfair to say that we can imagine the same exact events happened in both universe.
E) So, we now have two universe where the same exact events happened in them, both appear 100% identical, BUT Universe Alpha has free will and Universe Sigma does not.
F) Now, let's say that you do not know which universe is Universe Alpha and which universe is Universe Sigma. You have to identify which universe is which.
G) I have yet to find anyone who can logically answer how they would be able to tell which one is which, and so, via the Law of Parsimony, it seems more rational to reject the existence of free will altogether.

There are other reasons, but #2 is my main one.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

How does that show it? Do I have the "free will" to question it? Or is my questioning, ultimately, outside of my own control?

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

Pure assertion, but go on.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

You haven't really demonstrated how free will exists.
You obviously have never looked at determinists writing as you would see your argument fro free will is pathetically weak.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 3:50:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 3:25:58 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

1) Because all other actions seem to be guided, on some level, by natural laws, and I see no reason to believe differently for humans.

2) Eternalism seems to be true, and that mean libertarian free will is impossible (as the future already exists).
With this understanding, let's do the following thought experiment.
A) Let's look at two universes, both where eternalism is true and where things are guided by natural laws.
B) Universe Alpha is a universe where free will exists. Universe Sigma is a universe where free will does not exist.
C) Since eternalism is true, we can already rule out libertarian free will from Universe Alpha, and therefore it must be a form of compatibalism.
D) Both are guided by natural laws and libertarian free will doesn't exist in either, so it isn't unfair to say that we can imagine the same exact events happened in both universe.
E) So, we now have two universe where the same exact events happened in them, both appear 100% identical, BUT Universe Alpha has free will and Universe Sigma does not.
F) Now, let's say that you do not know which universe is Universe Alpha and which universe is Universe Sigma. You have to identify which universe is which.
G) I have yet to find anyone who can logically answer how they would be able to tell which one is which, and so, via the Law of Parsimony, it seems more rational to reject the existence of free will altogether.

There are other reasons, but #2 is my main one.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

How does that show it? Do I have the "free will" to question it? Or is my questioning, ultimately, outside of my own control?

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

Pure assertion, but go on.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

You haven't really demonstrated how free will exists.
You obviously have never looked at determinists writing as you would see your argument fro free will is pathetically weak.

I don't need to. You have just done so by questioning what I wrote.

Sorry I think theirs argumentation is contrived and completely misses the point.

It is only the gift of free will tat allows them to think as they do.

If our creator didn't give us free will we would never be able to speak against him as so many do. He wouldn't allow it.

Often the truth appears weak, but it remains the truth none the less, because even at it's weakest no-one can change it.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:01:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

Firstly, we have to specify what is being referring to as free will. One expression I've commonly heard that seems to capture the spirit of it is "the ability to have done otherwise". Would you agree with that notion?

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

The appearance of choice does not mean that there is a choice in actuality. imagine a railroad engineer who is coming upon a split in the rail where he can choose to go right or left. He chooses to go right, but unbeknownst to him, the rail switch was malfunctioning so it would have been physically impossible for him to turn left. Now, in reality, can we say that he really had a choice? No. But, the ignorance of that malfunction creates the *illusion* of choice for the train engineer.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

Animals (in general) have a simpler cognitive decision-making system and cannot account for the amount of variables and consequences that we humans can. Animals reason based on their experiences, a dog that's hungry might hold off on digging through the garbage for food (because of anticipated consequences) until their master arrives home, when pure instinct might say otherwise.

In any case, why would you think that we don't derive all that we are from instinct and nature? Every willful action you take and every willful decision you make is derived from motivation, which is derived from personal desire. We act to change the world around us to meet our personal preferences, for instance stopping an action that would bring unwanted harm to another person. Even if you were to act to change yourself (like a bad habit), you must first *want* to change for some reason (i.e. consequences, heath) in order to engage that action.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

I disagree. The appearance of a choice does not necessarily mean a choice exists, as above.

Let's say that you became angry at someone and punched them. Later, you regretted your actions and feel as though you could have done otherwise. But is this really the case? At the moment you decided to punch the person, you were thinking "a", you were feeling "b", and your experiences/knowledge were "c".

So, if these variables, "a", "b", and "c" (and what others might exist) are what led you to taking that action, how could a different result have come from those same variables? In our world, consistency makes physics and chemistry possible.

When you break on a pool table, it's very possible to predict exactly where each ball is going to end up by analyzing the variables: force applied, friction, etc. Those variables lead to only one possible outcome. So, since the decisions you make are based upon existing variables, why would any other result be expected to come about?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:03:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 3:50:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/21/2016 3:25:58 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

1) Because all other actions seem to be guided, on some level, by natural laws, and I see no reason to believe differently for humans.

2) Eternalism seems to be true, and that mean libertarian free will is impossible (as the future already exists).
With this understanding, let's do the following thought experiment.
A) Let's look at two universes, both where eternalism is true and where things are guided by natural laws.
B) Universe Alpha is a universe where free will exists. Universe Sigma is a universe where free will does not exist.
C) Since eternalism is true, we can already rule out libertarian free will from Universe Alpha, and therefore it must be a form of compatibalism.
D) Both are guided by natural laws and libertarian free will doesn't exist in either, so it isn't unfair to say that we can imagine the same exact events happened in both universe.
E) So, we now have two universe where the same exact events happened in them, both appear 100% identical, BUT Universe Alpha has free will and Universe Sigma does not.
F) Now, let's say that you do not know which universe is Universe Alpha and which universe is Universe Sigma. You have to identify which universe is which.
G) I have yet to find anyone who can logically answer how they would be able to tell which one is which, and so, via the Law of Parsimony, it seems more rational to reject the existence of free will altogether.

There are other reasons, but #2 is my main one.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

How does that show it? Do I have the "free will" to question it? Or is my questioning, ultimately, outside of my own control?

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

Pure assertion, but go on.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

You haven't really demonstrated how free will exists.
You obviously have never looked at determinists writing as you would see your argument fro free will is pathetically weak.

I don't need to. You have just done so by questioning what I wrote.

Sorry I think theirs argumentation is contrived and completely misses the point.

It is only the gift of free will tat allows them to think as they do.

If our creator didn't give us free will we would never be able to speak against him as so many do. He wouldn't allow it.

Often the truth appears weak, but it remains the truth none the less, because even at it's weakest no-one can change it.

The Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't determine what the truth was and changed it six times.

"Watchtower has promoted six different and contradictory explanations of "this generation." Many Witnesses based crucial life choices on the understanding that Armageddon would arrive before the death of all those born prior to 1914. Can an organization that makes such critical errors rightfully claim they alone are directed by God?"

List of changes by year. Original teaching, Since 1927, Since 1951, Since 1995, Since 2008, Current teaching - since 2010
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:24:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 3:24:35 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

That is quite a realization for someone who continues to preach Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines and quotes their material even after being disfellowshipped and shunned by the Jehovah's Witnesses for the last 11 years with little hope of being reinstated.

With all the free will you exercised didn't seem to have done you any good either.

You remain divorced after 4 marriages and your children ignores you.
You remain disfellowshipped and shunned by the JW elders.
You engaged in unnatural sexual acts and called yourself a serial adulterer.
You remain financially strapped, your fund raising attempts all failed.
You are still on medication for your suicidal depressions.
You are now physically handicapped and live on disability assistance.
You haven't been laid in 15 years.
You live alone with a dog.
You turned to Jehovah,but your government handouts are paying your bills.
You are 67 and do not have any employable skills besides being too old to work.
You think jesus was an angel. Everyone knows he was a Jewish carpenters son.
You pray to Jehovah a meaningless name in the English language.
Last we heard you were raising money for a motorcycle because your old one had to be scrapped.
You failed to raise money on Gofundme.com so you could join Imelda after trying for several years.
You were looking for relationships on a free dating service Mingle2.com while still committed to marry Imelda.

WTF :D
Never fart near dog
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:54:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:24:27 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 3:24:35 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

That is quite a realization for someone who continues to preach Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines and quotes their material even after being disfellowshipped and shunned by the Jehovah's Witnesses for the last 11 years with little hope of being reinstated.

With all the free will you exercised didn't seem to have done you any good either.

You remain divorced after 4 marriages and your children ignores you.
You remain disfellowshipped and shunned by the JW elders.
You engaged in unnatural sexual acts and called yourself a serial adulterer.
You remain financially strapped, your fund raising attempts all failed.
You are still on medication for your suicidal depressions.
You are now physically handicapped and live on disability assistance.
You haven't been laid in 15 years.
You live alone with a dog.
You turned to Jehovah,but your government handouts are paying your bills.
You are 67 and do not have any employable skills besides being too old to work.
You think jesus was an angel. Everyone knows he was a Jewish carpenters son.
You pray to Jehovah a meaningless name in the English language.
Last we heard you were raising money for a motorcycle because your old one had to be scrapped.
You failed to raise money on Gofundme.com so you could join Imelda after trying for several years.
You were looking for relationships on a free dating service Mingle2.com while still committed to marry Imelda.

WTF :D
Those are the confessions of MCB who preaches here on DDO to people who are better humans than he can ever be. Yet he believes they are misguided, lost and can learn from him because he is guided by Jehovah and the Holy Spirit and the truth.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:56:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:01:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

Firstly, we have to specify what is being referring to as free will. One expression I've commonly heard that seems to capture the spirit of it is "the ability to have done otherwise". Would you agree with that notion?

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

The appearance of choice does not mean that there is a choice in actuality. imagine a railroad engineer who is coming upon a split in the rail where he can choose to go right or left. He chooses to go right, but unbeknownst to him, the rail switch was malfunctioning so it would have been physically impossible for him to turn left. Now, in reality, can we say that he really had a choice? No. But, the ignorance of that malfunction creates the *illusion* of choice for the train engineer.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

Animals (in general) have a simpler cognitive decision-making system and cannot account for the amount of variables and consequences that we humans can. Animals reason based on their experiences, a dog that's hungry might hold off on digging through the garbage for food (because of anticipated consequences) until their master arrives home, when pure instinct might say otherwise.

In any case, why would you think that we don't derive all that we are from instinct and nature? Every willful action you take and every willful decision you make is derived from motivation, which is derived from personal desire. We act to change the world around us to meet our personal preferences, for instance stopping an action that would bring unwanted harm to another person. Even if you were to act to change yourself (like a bad habit), you must first *want* to change for some reason (i.e. consequences, heath) in order to engage that action.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

I disagree. The appearance of a choice does not necessarily mean a choice exists, as above.

Let's say that you became angry at someone and punched them. Later, you regretted your actions and feel as though you could have done otherwise. But is this really the case? At the moment you decided to punch the person, you were thinking "a", you were feeling "b", and your experiences/knowledge were "c".

So, if these variables, "a", "b", and "c" (and what others might exist) are what led you to taking that action, how could a different result have come from those same variables? In our world, consistency makes physics and chemistry possible.

When you break on a pool table, it's very possible to predict exactly where each ball is going to end up by analyzing the variables: force applied, friction, etc. Those variables lead to only one possible outcome. So, since the decisions you make are based upon existing variables, why would any other result be expected to come about?

Precisely, animals have not been given free will nor the cognitive ability to use it.

Like most people of your type you ask the question and then answer it yourself.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:13:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:56:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/21/2016 4:01:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

Firstly, we have to specify what is being referring to as free will. One expression I've commonly heard that seems to capture the spirit of it is "the ability to have done otherwise". Would you agree with that notion?

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

The appearance of choice does not mean that there is a choice in actuality. imagine a railroad engineer who is coming upon a split in the rail where he can choose to go right or left. He chooses to go right, but unbeknownst to him, the rail switch was malfunctioning so it would have been physically impossible for him to turn left. Now, in reality, can we say that he really had a choice? No. But, the ignorance of that malfunction creates the *illusion* of choice for the train engineer.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

Animals (in general) have a simpler cognitive decision-making system and cannot account for the amount of variables and consequences that we humans can. Animals reason based on their experiences, a dog that's hungry might hold off on digging through the garbage for food (because of anticipated consequences) until their master arrives home, when pure instinct might say otherwise.

In any case, why would you think that we don't derive all that we are from instinct and nature? Every willful action you take and every willful decision you make is derived from motivation, which is derived from personal desire. We act to change the world around us to meet our personal preferences, for instance stopping an action that would bring unwanted harm to another person. Even if you were to act to change yourself (like a bad habit), you must first *want* to change for some reason (i.e. consequences, heath) in order to engage that action.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

I disagree. The appearance of a choice does not necessarily mean a choice exists, as above.

Let's say that you became angry at someone and punched them. Later, you regretted your actions and feel as though you could have done otherwise. But is this really the case? At the moment you decided to punch the person, you were thinking "a", you were feeling "b", and your experiences/knowledge were "c".

So, if these variables, "a", "b", and "c" (and what others might exist) are what led you to taking that action, how could a different result have come from those same variables? In our world, consistency makes physics and chemistry possible.

When you break on a pool table, it's very possible to predict exactly where each ball is going to end up by analyzing the variables: force applied, friction, etc. Those variables lead to only one possible outcome. So, since the decisions you make are based upon existing variables, why would any other result be expected to come about?

Precisely, animals have not been given free will nor the cognitive ability to use it.

Dude... you literally just disregarded every single thing I said...

Like most people of your type you ask the question and then answer it yourself.

"Your type", huh? You mean people who wish to engage in polite, rational discourse in an effort to reconcile disagreements with others that hold opposing views in an effort to discern the truth of the matter and/or if currently held beliefs are valid?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:15:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:01:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

Firstly, we have to specify what is being referring to as free will. One expression I've commonly heard that seems to capture the spirit of it is "the ability to have done otherwise". Would you agree with that notion?

The ability to have decided otherwise is more accurate.


The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

The appearance of choice does not mean that there is a choice in actuality. imagine a railroad engineer who is coming upon a split in the rail where he can choose to go right or left. He chooses to go right, but unbeknownst to him, the rail switch was malfunctioning so it would have been physically impossible for him to turn left. Now, in reality, can we say that he really had a choice? No. But, the ignorance of that malfunction creates the *illusion* of choice for the train engineer.

Of course it does.

The trouble is that life is not like a set of rails pre-determining what our decisions must be. It is more like a normal road where we can actually choose which way to go. We always have a choice.

It is just that sometimes the choices are weighted one weigh or another.

What if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do something.

Do you have a choice?

Of course you do. The gunman has weighted the choice to get you to do what he wants but you can still say no and accept the consequences of your decision.


Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

Animals (in general) have a simpler cognitive decision-making system and cannot account for the amount of variables and consequences that we humans can. Animals reason based on their experiences, a dog that's hungry might hold off on digging through the garbage for food (because of anticipated consequences) until their master arrives home, when pure instinct might say otherwise.

In any case, why would you think that we don't derive all that we are from instinct and nature? Every willful action you take and every willful decision you make is derived from motivation, which is derived from personal desire. We act to change the world around us to meet our personal preferences, for instance stopping an action that would bring unwanted harm to another person. Even if you were to act to change yourself (like a bad habit), you must first *want* to change for some reason (i.e. consequences, heath) in order to engage that action.

The evidence says we do not.

we are bron with a basic personlaity wich chages as we grow and moves in teh direction that ou reaction to our circumstances takes us.

But we can always change direction.

Hence people born with all the advantages that are available sometimes fail, and people born with one of them sometimes succeed.


The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

I disagree. The appearance of a choice does not necessarily mean a choice exists, as above.

But there is no appearance of choice in the case of the rail-road illustration, only factors which the engineer was not aware of.

Again, life is not a set of rails, it is a permanent series of choices.


Let's say that you became angry at someone and punched them. Later, you regretted your actions and feel as though you could have done otherwise. But is this really the case? At the moment you decided to punch the person, you were thinking "a", you were feeling "b", and your experiences/knowledge were "c".

Yes it is always the case. If am foolish enough to give in to a wrong impulse that is my fault, my responsibility, and no-one else's. No-one forced me to hit him.

My experiences, and knowledge would always tell me not to hit. Simple as. I have learned the stupidity of hitting by long experience.


So, if these variables, "a", "b", and "c" (and what others might exist) are what led you to taking that action, how could a different result have come from those same variables? In our world, consistency makes physics and chemistry possible.

Your decision in the above illustration s controlled by your personal moral imperative. If like me you have learned that to hit is wrong you will not do it. Sometimes you prepare for the choice long before the event.

But it is still a choice because I choose my own moral imperatives from a range of options.


When you break on a pool table, it's very possible to predict exactly where each ball is going to end up by analyzing the variables: force applied, friction, etc. Those variables lead to only one possible outcome. So, since the decisions you make are based upon existing variables, why would any other result be expected to come about?

Do you actually know exactly how many variables you would have to take into account? A snooker player were capable of knowing all the variables he would never miss a shot and the cue-ball would always end up exactly where he wanted it to. The choice remains there if he had the ability to work out, predict, and assess all of the dozens of variables that might affect his shot.

It does not affect his ability to choose, to decide, it simply affects the outcome of his choice.

That would be true if it were possible for you to know and allow for all possible variables at the time you strike. we do not have the intellect to make such complex decisions hence our need to rely on Jehovah as I do.

Like I said, such arguments are contrived and are not from the "real world".

The simple answer is that we have the ability to choose and decide on what information we can gather. That is free will. Nothing more and nothing less.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:38:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

So, we have have no choice but to have it? Ironic....
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:47:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The universe as currently understood cannot operate without randomness. That's because all the objects exist only as probability distributions. Quantum events are inherently probabilistic, so there is no possible escape from future uncertainty. Free will is the self-modifying algorithm that a person's brain uses to process data from the senses, data which necessarily not predetermined. Free will exists as the mechanism by which the algorithms for understanding evolve unpredictably.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:49:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:47:54 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The universe as currently understood cannot operate without randomness. That's because all the objects exist only as probability distributions. Quantum events are inherently probabilistic, so there is no possible escape from future uncertainty. Free will is the self-modifying algorithm that a person's brain uses to process data from the senses, data which necessarily not predetermined. Free will exists as the mechanism by which the algorithms for understanding evolve unpredictably.

Hey! Welcome back Roy, we haven't seen you in a while. Hope all is well.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:32:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:15:09 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/21/2016 4:01:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Firstly, we have to specify what is being referring to as free will. One expression I've commonly heard that seems to capture the spirit of it is "the ability to have done otherwise". Would you agree with that notion?

The ability to have decided otherwise is more accurate.

I agree.

The appearance of choice does not mean that there is a choice in actuality. imagine a railroad engineer <snipped>

Of course it does.

No - he was going to turn right regardless if he decided to or not; it was impossible to do otherwise. He didn"t have a choice but to go right.

The trouble is that life is not like a set of rails pre-determining what our decisions must be. It is more like a normal road where we can actually choose which way to go. We always have a choice.

It is just that sometimes the choices are weighted one weigh or another.

What if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do something.

Do you have a choice?

Of course you do. The gunman has weighted the choice to get you to do what he wants but you can still say no and accept the consequences of your decision.

The point of this analogy was simply to demonstrate how something like free will could be an illusion; it was not an argument, in of itself. A similar analogy would be that if it was fated that Stephen Johnson was going to die in a car accident at exactly 10:02AM on Thursday, and it happened, how would anyone ever be able to see it as anything but a product of random chance if they didn"t have that bit of knowledge? It"s an illusion created by ignorance.

Animals (in general) have a simpler cognitive decision-making system <snipped>

In any case, why would you think that we don't derive all that we are from instinct and nature? Every willful action you take and every willful decision you make is derived from motivation, which is derived from personal desire. We act to change the world around us to meet our personal preferences, for instance stopping an action that would bring unwanted harm to another person. Even if you were to act to change yourself (like a bad habit), you must first *want* to change for some reason (i.e. consequences, heath) in order to engage that action.

The evidence says we do not.

What evidence?

we are bron with a basic personlaity wich chages as we grow and moves in teh direction that ou reaction to our circumstances takes us.

You were born with an initial personality and nature, of which you had no control. The circumstances and experience you were subject to as a youth played a heavy role in the development and change of this personality and nature, of which you had no control. The very foundation of who you are is beyond your control; what you find attractive, appealing, good, bad, tasteful, angering, etc. is based on factors that are beyond your control.

But we can always change direction.

Yes, but as I said, you have to first have motive to change direction; a reason to decide to change.

Hence people born with all the advantages that are available sometimes fail, and people born with one of them sometimes succeed.

I disagree. The appearance of a choice does not necessarily mean a choice exists, as above.

But there is no appearance of choice in the case of the rail-road illustration, only factors which the engineer was not aware of.

Again, life is not a set of rails, it is a permanent series of choices.

But how could you know that? Just like the engineer, if you were, in actuality, totally unable to decide otherwise, how would you know? You would still perceive that you had a choice; how could you conceivably demonstrate that you actually did?

Let's say that you became angry at someone and punched them. <snipped>

Yes it is always the case. If am foolish enough to give in to a wrong impulse that is my fault, my responsibility, and no-one else's. No-one forced me to hit him.

Agreed: you were not coerced. That was not part of the hypothetical situation.

My experiences, and knowledge would always tell me not to hit. Simple as. I have learned the stupidity of hitting by long experience.

So, if these variables, "a", "b", and "c" (and what others might exist) are what led you to taking that action, how could a different result have come from those same variables? In our world, consistency makes physics and chemistry possible.

Your decision in the above illustration s controlled by your personal moral imperative. If like me you have learned that to hit is wrong you will not do it. Sometimes you prepare for the choice long before the event.

But it is still a choice because I choose my own moral imperatives from a range of options.

As this is a hypothetical scenario, your personal motivations regarding the initial act are not relevant to it. If you are uncomfortable with we portraying the subject as "you", then substitute a hypothetical person, "Fred", and please address the question.

When you break on a pool table <snipped>

Do you actually know exactly how many variables you would have to take into account? A snooker player were capable of knowing all the variables he would never miss a shot and the cue-ball would always end up exactly where he wanted it to. The choice remains there if he had the ability to work out, predict, and assess all of the dozens of variables that might affect his shot.

That"s not the point - a person"s ability or inability to do it on the fly is irrelevant. The point is that the universe is consistent enough for us to make entirely reliable predictions based on an established set of variables, which is why we can develop technology with such consistency and precision. Also, that last sentence has no bearing on the point, which is: if the existing variables of a situation determine the outcome, then how could those existing variables produce two different outcomes?

It does not affect his ability to choose, to decide, it simply affects the outcome of his choice.

But by what means does a person come to a choice? Is it not determined by variables like: how that person feels right now, what that person is thinking, what that person knows, etc.?

That would be true if it were possible for you to know and allow for all possible variables at the time you strike. we do not have the intellect to make such complex decisions hence our need to rely on Jehovah as I do.

The pool table analogy was demonstrating consistent cause-and-effect behavior of the universe, which permits the existence of fields of study like physics and chemistry. Do you know what else follows this cause-and-effect? Your brain; the chemical neurological process that is the interaction between physical elements. We can accurately predict how changing or damaging the physical brain can subsequently alter a subject"s behavior and though patterns. Do you think that the brain is exempt from the same consistent physical laws of the universe?

Like I said, such arguments are contrived and are not from the "real world".

The simple answer is that we have the ability to choose and decide on what information we can gather. That is free will. Nothing more and nothing less.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:35:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:47:54 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The universe as currently understood cannot operate without randomness. That's because all the objects exist only as probability distributions. Quantum events are inherently probabilistic, so there is no possible escape from future uncertainty. Free will is the self-modifying algorithm that a person's brain uses to process data from the senses, data which necessarily not predetermined. Free will exists as the mechanism by which the algorithms for understanding evolve unpredictably.

If free will is derived from literal randomness, then it's still beyond willful control, isn't it? I mean, if your decision are either fixed or determined by dice rolls, for example, there's no element of control at all.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:08:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 6:35:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:

If free will is derived from literal randomness, then it's still beyond willful control, isn't it? I mean, if your decision are either fixed or determined by dice rolls, for example, there's no element of control at all.

No, free will is the algorithm that deals with the randomness. Any any time it is fixed, which leads to a decision, but over time the algorithm itself changes. Compare it to playing a card game like bridge or poker. The cards are dealt randomly, but how you play the cards is not at all random. Moreover, how you play the cards depends upon your experience in past play, all of which was with random cards. It may be that something like cosmic rays can hit a synapse in the brain that affects the decision, but that's only a small part of the way free will plays out. It's a well-defined self-modifying algorithm.

I think the interesting part is that not only isn't the universe deterministic, as constructed based upon quantum physic it cannot be.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:10:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:49:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Hey! Welcome back Roy, we haven't seen you in a while. Hope all is well.

Yeah, I don't get back to DDO too often. Just seeing what's happening.
ApollotheSerpentSlayer
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:31:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
As what i have learned from Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, we human being where created very special, because the God gave His image, when He said Genesis 1:26-28;
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


that image was talking about the freedom of choice of man, the freedom to choose what is good and evil, that is our power, that even God or the devil cannot intervene when we choose something to what will happen to ourselves.

Only matters is, what will are you are doing, is it the will of God, or if it is still the your will to be done in your life.
Matthew 7:21
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

so, in the end, it's all matter to the choice you have made on what to end up in these last days.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:33:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 7:08:42 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:35:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:

If free will is derived from literal randomness, then it's still beyond willful control, isn't it? I mean, if your decision are either fixed or determined by dice rolls, for example, there's no element of control at all.

No, free will is the algorithm that deals with the randomness. Any any time it is fixed, which leads to a decision, but over time the algorithm itself changes. Compare it to playing a card game like bridge or poker. The cards are dealt randomly, but how you play the cards is not at all random. Moreover, how you play the cards depends upon your experience in past play, all of which was with random cards. It may be that something like cosmic rays can hit a synapse in the brain that affects the decision, but that's only a small part of the way free will plays out. It's a well-defined self-modifying algorithm.

I think the interesting part is that not only isn't the universe deterministic, as constructed based upon quantum physic it cannot be.

So this is analogous to random mutations and natural selection in evolution then, right?

I'm not going to pretend I'm versed in quantum mechanics, but I do find the concept of "random" (as if to mean something like "without cause") to be just a product of ignorance. How can we determine that something is ultimately random when it could be the case that we just aren't aware of the cause?
lannan13
Posts: 23,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

The dumb thing is that they obviously don't realise that simply having the ability to question it shows that we have it beyond any doubt.

Animals don;t question, they simply react according to the instinctive imperatives written in their DNA.

The freedom to question is absolute proof of free will, which no-one can take from us unless we choose to let them, and even that is a function of free will, the free will to give it up whenever we decide it is wisest to do so.

It could be the concept of Tabula Rosa where we are born with a clean slate. Where then the government of anything is able to influence us effecitvely "brainwashing us" to the point where we are no longer individuals, but slaves to soceity or a grouping.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:01:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 3:50:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
2) Eternalism seems to be true, and that mean libertarian free will is impossible (as the future already exists).
With this understanding, let's do the following thought experiment.
A) Let's look at two universes, both where eternalism is true and where things are guided by natural laws.
B) Universe Alpha is a universe where free will exists. Universe Sigma is a universe where free will does not exist.
C) Since eternalism is true, we can already rule out libertarian free will from Universe Alpha, and therefore it must be a form of compatibalism.
D) Both are guided by natural laws and libertarian free will doesn't exist in either, so it isn't unfair to say that we can imagine the same exact events happened in both universe.
E) So, we now have two universe where the same exact events happened in them, both appear 100% identical, BUT Universe Alpha has free will and Universe Sigma does not.
F) Now, let's say that you do not know which universe is Universe Alpha and which universe is Universe Sigma. You have to identify which universe is which.
G) I have yet to find anyone who can logically answer how they would be able to tell which one is which, and so, via the Law of Parsimony, it seems more rational to reject the existence of free will altogether.

If you want to say there is free will, answer this thought experiment.
How can you identify which universe is the one with free will.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:51:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 8:01:51 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 3:50:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
2) Eternalism seems to be true, and that mean libertarian free will is impossible (as the future already exists).
With this understanding, let's do the following thought experiment.
A) Let's look at two universes, both where eternalism is true and where things are guided by natural laws.
B) Universe Alpha is a universe where free will exists. Universe Sigma is a universe where free will does not exist.
C) Since eternalism is true, we can already rule out libertarian free will from Universe Alpha, and therefore it must be a form of compatibalism.
D) Both are guided by natural laws and libertarian free will doesn't exist in either, so it isn't unfair to say that we can imagine the same exact events happened in both universe.
E) So, we now have two universe where the same exact events happened in them, both appear 100% identical, BUT Universe Alpha has free will and Universe Sigma does not.
F) Now, let's say that you do not know which universe is Universe Alpha and which universe is Universe Sigma. You have to identify which universe is which.
G) I have yet to find anyone who can logically answer how they would be able to tell which one is which, and so, via the Law of Parsimony, it seems more rational to reject the existence of free will altogether.

If you want to say there is free will, answer this thought experiment.
How can you identify which universe is the one with free will.

All you are proving is that you don't even now what free will is.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 1:00:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 2:50:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I have never been able to understand why people doubt that we have it.

IF you really believe YOU have a genuine ' freewill ' then first explain why you keep freely choosing to remain a malignant Sinner?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 1:19:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 3:50:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
If our creator didn't give us free will we would never be able to speak against him as so many do. He wouldn't allow it.

1. A Supernatural Creator is a human devised concept!

2. Only some Patriarchal Story books assert this concept refers to a HIM!

3. You believe you have a freewill, yet you continue to freely choose to remain a malignant Sinner!

4. Even your supposed preferred Story book also refutes the notion that this supposed God allows genuine ' free will! '

i.e.

a) Moreover, these enemies of mine that did not want me to become king over them BRING here and slaughter them before me' " (Luke 19:27) KIT Story book

&

in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction. . . . (2 Thess. 1:8,9) NW pretend Translation, violence promoting Botchtower propaganda

Hence Your Botchtower contrived God is a LIAR! -

freewill: (Noun) The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies

b) A former Botchtowerite of 37 years recently blew the whistle on the Cult that evicted you, exposing it as a 100% man-made illegitimate organisation that you (albeit in vain) still try to defend!

https://www.youtube.com...

You never had a shred of legitimacy for your Botchtower derived cause MCB, and that remains unchanged!
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:12:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 7:10:34 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:49:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Hey! Welcome back Roy, we haven't seen you in a while. Hope all is well.

Yeah, I don't get back to DDO too often. Just seeing what's happening.

Well, we do appreciate it when you do. I always look forward to reading your posts. Always insightful. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:52:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 7:33:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/21/2016 7:08:42 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:35:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:

So this is analogous to random mutations and natural selection in evolution then, right?

Hmmm. I'm not sure if there is an analogy or not. Mutations occur at random, but there is no decision process to accept or reject them. If the random change aids survival in the environment, then it's more likely to be retained that if it lowers the odds for survival.

I'm not going to pretend I'm versed in quantum mechanics, but I do find the concept of "random" (as if to mean something like "without cause") to be just a product of ignorance. How can we determine that something is ultimately random when it could be the case that we just aren't aware of the cause?

All we can say is that there is no proximate cause. If the same experiment is repeated identically twice, the outcome will not be the same. There could be a small spirit inside the particle with a random number table that determines the event, but it appears uncaused and random. The probability distribution of events is pre-determined, but each event is not. The Wikipedia article on quantum fluctuation may be helpful.

The position and velocity of a particle (or object) cannot be known precisely, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But it is not that we just cannot find the position and velocity accurately, it is that the object actually does not have them. It exists only as a probability. This is may be unimaginable by humans, but the math makes it clear that's the way the universe must work.

Free will is how the mind processes data to make decisions. The universe producing the data is not predetermined, nor is our decision processing. There is another problem of why we feel subjectively conscious, complete with free will. That's unanswered, and there is no sign that problem will be solved any time soon.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:39:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Is your name written in the book of life?
Whence cometh free will?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 10:36:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:39:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is your name written in the book of life?
Whence cometh free will?

It gets written into the book of life, or removed from it according to your use or abuse of your free will.

I am sure mine has been written in, rubbed out, and then written in again in the past.

Don't you want yours written into it.

Whilst we all have free will, it is up to use to learn to control it as needed, as Jehovah does.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:56:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:52:35 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/21/2016 7:33:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/21/2016 7:08:42 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:35:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:

So this is analogous to random mutations and natural selection in evolution then, right?

Hmmm. I'm not sure if there is an analogy or not. Mutations occur at random, but there is no decision process to accept or reject them. If the random change aids survival in the environment, then it's more likely to be retained that if it lowers the odds for survival.

Basically, the foundation is random while a fixed process regulates that randomness, so it's no longer random. Basically, the quantum uncertainly is equivalent to the mutations, while the algorithm you describe is equivalent to the regulating process of natural selection.

I'm not going to pretend I'm versed in quantum mechanics, but I do find the concept of "random" (as if to mean something like "without cause") to be just a product of ignorance. How can we determine that something is ultimately random when it could be the case that we just aren't aware of the cause?

All we can say is that there is no proximate cause. If the same experiment is repeated identically twice, the outcome will not be the same. There could be a small spirit inside the particle with a random number table that determines the event, but it appears uncaused and random. The probability distribution of events is pre-determined, but each event is not. The Wikipedia article on quantum fluctuation may be helpful.

The position and velocity of a particle (or object) cannot be known precisely, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But it is not that we just cannot find the position and velocity accurately, it is that the object actually does not have them. It exists only as a probability. This is may be unimaginable by humans, but the math makes it clear that's the way the universe must work.

Thank you. That much I actually have gathered, but I still am having difficulty understanding your idea on free will. Firstly, for the sake of clarity, how would you define free will? Secondly, the quantum world may yield largely unpredictable results (to which probability is our best means of prediction), but that tendency doesn't appear to carry to the natural world that we observe. For instance, a body of water is still consistent and fully predicable in terms of chemistry and classical physics.

Free will is how the mind processes data to make decisions. The universe producing the data is not predetermined, nor is our decision processing. There is another problem of why we feel subjectively conscious, complete with free will. That's unanswered, and there is no sign that problem will be solved any time soon.

But you described it as an algorithm, which definitely sounds to me that it (a) either produces results that correspond to the random input or (b) regulates and removed this randomness, as it thus, deterministic. And what establishes the parameters of the algorithm, exactly?

Yes, you're alluding to the hard problem of consciousness. Yes, this may never be answered well because, like reality, we don't have direct access to it in terms of our perception. We have to rely on our mind conceptually modeling the world around us based on external (or sometimes internal) stimuli. Do you think it could be the case that we are limited to analyzing such a conceptual model of our own mind in this respect, as well?