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

Elroch, sorry but you are talking rubbish. I provided a viable definition. I expect others did too. The guy who did a lot with computers, Turing, did a definition of artificial intelligence which is simply bad. Do not assume that a technician has a good overview and can solve that kind of problem.

Firstly, @Optimissed, I am genuinely interested in your definition, but have been unable to find after a fair amount of searching. Please do draw attention to it. 

I note that you yourself stated that there is both a deterministic component and a random component to behaviour. I have drawn attention to the fact that there is no third type of component, so I am at a loss as to what you are suggesting.

I agree that the Turing test is not a very satisfactory test of artificial intelligence. It is a testable criterion though, which is a big plus compared with some vaguer definitions.  Referring to this in this context is however a red herring: we are discussing a different concept.

It's worth noting that I have referred to peer-reviewed papers (including Conway and Kochen) to scientific American reviews of the relevant science for a general audience and other scientific source material, as well as referring to the experiments on how the brain makes decisions, which I gleaned from sources I don't have at my fingertips.

Perhaps some (eg "Pol-Potnoodle" - fine name for trolling) think slinging insults stands up well against this, but that would be unscientific.

this is just noise in attempt to divert from the real issue here. and the issue is that youre speaking with both sides of your mouth.

i have no problem being corrected. but when you do so, it obligate you to explain yourself instead of just throwing mud at me. you have been invited again and again to provide your definition for FW, but you are still failing to do so. claiming you did without providing any reference is just trickery.

is this it?

Elroch: "I believe in free will as an entirely unpredictable component of human behaviour. Admittedly, pretty much everything else also has such unpredictability."

Bait and switch "scientism" is Elroch's stock in trade.  It's a very British thing from the early 20th century.  Most american engineers (and economists) think likewise.

Better we learn to live with it.  Just saying.

The Ghostess might have it right -- "well la ti da....lol !!"  

I don't subscribe to scientism, indeed I view it as largely a pejorative fiction from a science denying minority.

I do subscribe to science as THE way to obtain objective truth about the general nature and behaviour of the real world. That is the scope of science and that is where it has no competitors. There are a wealth of subjective questions where science has no say (except to inform about relevant objective facts). Subjective questions never have definitive answers, just sometimes agreed ones.

Yes.

Free will is the absolutely unpredictable component of human behaviour. 

Lalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

so if u take that feeling to bed tonite ? then maybe this new one will help u forget. but do wutchu can to be stronger than ur past. that way ur future may still give u the chance u need. <3L    

oops. sorry. wrong thread.

It's ok, randomness is encouraged here.

Yes, well, if you weren't so confrontational and apparently closed to ideas but so willing to rubbish them, you would then be a very pleasant, knowledgeable and intelligent person to talk to. I can't help feeling the hostility is a reaction to something. I would be very open to building bridges.

Regarding Conway and Kochen, I object to their efforts on first principles, after they failed to provide an overview of their work. I simply do not trawl through complicated papers that have been recommended, in the hope that they'll be worthwhile, if they are inadequately and incorrectly presented. In any case, I consider the detour into quantum physics to be unrelated to how decisions are made. However, I am not insisting that quantum physics plays no part in the operation of the brain. I think the brain contains several mechanisms that bring different types of thought into association with each other as well as having the memory by association mechanism that we know about, and it's possible that the brain also brings more or less random thought components into mutual association. But all that doesn't mean that we cannot use these associations rationally in order to work out solutions. The mental triggers and balances that come into play are obviously complex, because differing results can be reached according to various factors, such as mood, recent experiences including dreams, whether or not we choose to make the effort to perform rational analyses, whether or not we have any other, pressing priorities and so on.

All of that doesn't introduce a possibility that free will can be proved or disproved according to quantum theory, which is really only going to be a deliberate distraction. I don't know whether you're familiar with Ontological Arguments regarding the existence or non-existence of certain Beings that we're not allowed to discuss. If we were, I'm sure I could show a similarity between them and K&C's argument. Essentially, the sought for solution is ALWAYS smuggled into the "proof", more or less cleverly; and more or less clever methods are used to camouflage that. Hence the smell of the rat was pretty over-powering.

Regarding a definition of free will, I mentioned that behaviour includes random and determined components. I was trying to allow your imagination to flourish by leaving it at that, in the hope that you would understand that I presumably must think it contains something else as well, if I believe in free will. I do believe in free will. Very limited free will maybe, in terms of how often normal people actually use it.

Well, I had stated the same as your "behaviour includes random and determined components" so it is good to have that point of agreement.

While there is a lot more to be said, that is a complete decomposition. There is a component of human behaviour that is in principle entirely predictable (based on knowledge of the physical behaviour of a human, including the brain - extremely challenging, but not too challenging to have lot of overlap with the focus of a massive EU project on computer modelling of the brain - see below). There is also a component which is completely unpredictable. Random components by definition can only have a probabilistic description - there is literally no more that can be said about them.

There is obviously a vast amount of detail that could (at least in principle) be explored about the behaviour of a human and its decomposition into these two parts. Most of it is way beyond our reach I would say.

The Human Brain Project

...lol !

Elon Musk's company is now worth 100 billion dollars. 

 If you study Tesla's theory of gravity, you find that instead of randomness, probability is cornerstone that glues everything together and when that probability reaches zero, it all flies apart.

Well Silver, I got to tell you that it is good to be back in Oregon. This after another run to the Bay Area, chock full of deadlines and five different types of weather. My goodness, I even had a guy threaten to call the cops on me! He dialed and put the phone to his ear, pretty sure it was a bluff though.

This happened in the heart of downtown San Francisco. He thought I was blocking traffic so that cars couldn’t pass, and of course he was first in line. I was operating the lift gate as he expostulated this bull****. My bad, as we held a rather pleasant conversation. ; )

To make matters even more interesting in the moment, this no nonsense type of guy started walking slowly down the line of cars looking right at me. I just kept working, and so it turned out that he wanted words with the lead guy. He told him that he could make it through the tight opening that I had left. And so he did, he just didn’t know how to drive his own car I guess. Anyway, thoughts on Free Will..

The Legal Ramifications of Free Will.

To say that I believe in Free Will, (which I do) means that I have to take ownership of my actions correct? If one truly does not believe in FW, what then? Not that that itself could be proven anyway, but I digress. Here’s a point to consider.. It is becoming more prevalent these times that people identify themselves to what ever they want to. Age, gender, species etc..

Is it a stretch to say that since one believes in the opposite of FW, that they are not really culpable of their own actions? Not sure if I’m making sense here, but all it seems to take is a good lawyer to muddy the waters, and a few bought and paid for ‘experts’ and you got a fifty fifty chance and maybe better.

Probably lost myself in the translation, but I know what I’m thinking.

You seem to be saying that since in law (and in morality) we're responsible for our actions then it's crazy to say that free will doesn't exist. If that's what you're saying, then I'm on your side.

Thanks. I haven't looked yet at your link but I will look at it. I want to say this. If I were guiding a project to model brain functionality, I would start from the a priori premise that it contains elements that are determined and random and also potentially unknown elements. I would start off by trying to construct a model based on relatively known elements. So I would start with trying to model the determined elements since they can most easily be recognised and then I would try to add random elements as they became identifiable. Then I would perform extensive tests, comparing real brain functionality studies with the model as it progressively evolved. Only after I had a working model would I try to determine how to potentially identify any missing components. I would assume that if free will exists then any missing components may be associated with it. I would also proceed from the assumption that free will does exist because not to do so would be bad science. If you're looking for an unknown particle or an unknown plant or an unknown element, you assume it exists, work out its probable properties, work out what those properties mean in terms of its recognition and so on.

....thatsa excellent approach.