Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

Your first two sentences were the contribution to the discussion.

Something that is pseudo-random is (by definition) determined by something unseen to those who see it as random. Once it is determined it is not "free", it is a fixed (determined) choice.

So as soon as some unspecified thing makes "free will" pseudorandom rather than being random, it stops being free will and merely "will".

However, it is certainly reasonable to take the position that a future choice can be free (undetermined) up to some point in time and then determined by something (such as the state of certain neurons). Indeed this has to be so, it's just a matter of when a choice becomes determined. 

i think that if opti draw a definition for genuine FW and elroch draw one for random FW. you could compere them and the differences will pop into yer eyes.

https://youtu.be/7xLqteKyLU0

Where words have multiple meanings, for serious communication it is necessary for it to be made clear which meaning it is. These are the sorts of things that are viewed as obvious in mathematics and real sciences, but can be forgotten in casual communications (especially by those who haven't developed the habit of being precise by working in a formal discipline).

I would agree for practical purposes, especially when the topic is fuzzy enough to make precise definitions difficult. Examples can often get across a concept too.

for me FW is simply the ability to make choices that change my future. am sure that this can, and should be refined, but it capture the essence of it.

other ideas of FW should be termed differently and explained according to their essence.

Isn't that more what could be called "purposeful behaviour"? Where you somehow assess choices based on some sort of evaluation of perceived consequences and use this evaluation to make the choice.

A very mundane example of the same can be found in many technologies. For example, a robot that detects which its battery is low, seeks and finds a power socket and recharges itself.

It is psychologically attractive for us to focus on the "freeness", but wouldn't it be accurate to say that what matters is we make the _best_ choices we can, based on our our criteria? In a sense this removes the freedom, except in the case where the choice doesn't matter. Even there while we may like to have the option to choose between equally beneficial choices, by definition it would be no disadvantage to be forced into some one of those equally best choices.

Viewed like this it seems the ability to make good choices matters a lot more than "freedom" (especially when the freedom enables the possibility to make what by our own criterion is a worse choice).

you're practically asking me to defend FW and that's a difficult task against the consensus disbelief in free will.  i can try to do just that, but first you have to come up your own definition of FW. and it cant be just a convoluted string of fancy words mixed with theoretical physics.

please define FW  in plain English.

No, you have no need to defend FW.  Indeed I am not sure of your definition of this, so that would not even be a well-defined issue.  As you know, I argue that the "free" in free will cannot mean more than the randomness that is part of the physical world. We are physical beings and the truths are the same.

But the point here is about the more important concept, the "will" - purposeful choices. If we merely accept that our choices may be potentially compared to each and evaluated according to our own criteria so as to determine whether one choice is better, worse or the same as another, then BY DEFINITION we don't want any more freedom than picking what we perceive as a BEST choice. Any extra freedom could not leave us better off (according to _any_ chosen criteria).

AS SOON AS U READ THIS...

pick a # btwn 1 and 1000.

DO IT RIGHT NOW !!

now. s/o explain to me how this # is NOT random.

and if u can't ?...then randomness exists, right ?

Yes.

It was 43. Always is.

Fair enough. at least now i finally know where you stand on this, when before all i knew was that 1. you dont believe in free will. and 2. that your belief has something to do with randomness. 

you can make the claim that we are capable of generating genuine random #'s, and no one can prove you wrong.

with that said, many people will argue that the number you generated was purely dependent on your momentary state of mind and it couldn't be otherwise. or something along that line.

This is quite an interesting example, as it shows how even if there might be some way to predict what a person would pick rather than it being absolutely random, if you don't have this information, the choice is random to you.

This could be complicated by knowledge of the numbers that people in general tend to pick when asked this question. You can be sure that if you asked a million people you would find some genuine skews in the selection. For example, it is very unlikely that each of the 10 blocks of 100 would be equally weighted.

This draws attention to the question of what we mean by random and whether two random things are equally random.  The usually definition is that maximum entropy distributions are maximally random. This would be a uniform selection of the thousand numbers, with 0.1% chance of each being selected. A more skewed distribution will always have lower entropy, and the difference is how far from maximally random it is (this has a close relationship to the notion of energy in physics, which can be thought of as the amount of divergence from a maximum entropy macrostate).

that counts me out...like WAY out. yee !

(one's) momentary state of mind

so momentary state of mind is s/h related to determinism ? feels to me like MSofM izza random inducer...no ?   proving that being random-aimless-tameless is alive & well ? (lemme say yay !)

kinda. a determinist will tell you that your momentary state of mind is not a stand alone, and its your previous state that was the inducer of your current momentary state, (accumulation of your emotions, physics, cognition and so on) going all the way back to the beginning of the universe. i think that most indeterminists will generally agree, but will claim that tiny amount of genuine randomness somehow break this chain and allow a different outcome.

being an aimless-tameless is definitely live and kicking, but that's more of a personality type, or a life style. kind of like the hand you dealt with, and you play it accordingly. 

thats as far as objectivity goes. personally i find it hard to sell either one to myself, so i introduced new ideas that i tend to feel more comfortable with. (that life has more to it than just a collection of atoms) that may sound loony at first, but not much loonier than say introducing dark matter to the BB model. 

Those who prefer non-optimal choices haven't noticed that that makes the choices optimal according to their chosen criteria.

For example a person who plays chess and throws in deliberate inaccuracies (none of that sandbagging here of course!) in order to make their opponent happy is choosing optimal moves based on a criterion that values the opponent's happiness.

but thats the whole thing. some minds dont make criteria. some minds arent 100% healthy (actually none are). and some brains are as sharp as kindyscissors. take all this in and every action (thought ?) affects the universe, right ?

the path of least resistance is reserved for stuff like planets & road lanes & coconuts. but ppl dont always take it. a flat squirrel did...but i mean other biosurvivors.