"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b5fbf4d$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Depends on what you mean by "know",

> Being aware that you have made a decision is "know" here.

I was more concerned about the degree of confidence, or maybe correlation.
One can claim that meteorologists know tomorrow's weather as well as he can
claim that they do not. Both can be correct depending on what one
understands from the term.

> > but it's pretty common to predict other
> > people's decisions and reactions.

> Yeah, but not when it's "pick a random number from 1 to 2."  This isn't
> really what most people would call a "decision."

Why? That's the least of human faculties. A coin can do better than me in
making a random picks. For whatever reason, if there were a RNG in our
brains, would that prove that we have free will? Would you say a computer
program controlling a robot that spits out random binary decisions (say,
based on a radioactive source and geiger counter) as to the next direction
to take, has free will?

If we define free will as ability to make non-predictable (or without 100%
certainty) decisions, any quantum system can be said to have free will. Then
the term becomes meaningless.

But therein lies the problem - how can we define it so it's meaningful if
both deterministic and probabilistic decisions are out?

Post a reply to this message