there is a difference in agency where a human system bases its decisions on a large spatial, time range of experiences (moments to life-long experiences and multi-generation planning, tiny tools all the way to architecture planning, a large number of connections by multiple means to other humans’ experiences) to make “decisions”. What do you call that?

I would call this determinism as much as anything else. Whatever you discover by reflecting on memories, you make your decision based on those memories, ergo there was a reason that determined your choice.

Because it exists and if it’s not called free will, that’s probably the closest thing that scientifically can be measured and associated with “free will”.

I would just agree that we have a “will”. It’s the “free” qualifier that’s disputed.

We may just be “transistors” responding to the environment, but we are complex enough to introduce chaos by connecting lots of unrelated things to the point of being as close to being unpredictable as any random system in the universe.

Sorry, I can’t agree. We have ignorance about the future, but that doesn’t mean my decisions are undetermined. As far as I can tell, everything is either determined or not determined. If it’s determined, then I was not free to choose it. If it’s not determined, then it’s random, in which case I again could not have freely chosen it. You seem to be moving towards compatibilism, which accepts determinism but believes determinism can still be compatible with a notion of free will, e.g. our ignorance of the future is what we mean by free will.

Personally, I think life is very interesting bring a wet robot! However, I understand why most reject the concept out of hand.

That’s what it is to be a compatibilist. They are determinists who believe that there is still a meaningful use of the phrase free will, despite the apparent determinism of the universe. They would redefine free will to not mean I have the ability to supervene on the natural laws, but that when you make a decision absent certain forces compelling a particular choice, that’s what we mean by free will.

For people arguing they have free will, they typically mean they have the ability to do other than what they did do. That is, whenever they make a choice, they do so under the belief that they could have, in principle, made a different choice. As far as science is concerned, such a free will does not exist, because the behaviors you exhibit appear to be completely explainable in terms of the environment impressing upon you, and the effects that impression has on your neural activity. There is no “you” making free decisions in this picture. There’s just stuff bumping into other stuff, and how is that free?

Regarding a general consensus of free will, that’s just not even an argument anyone should care about. Plenty of people are flatly told they have free will because, “they don’t have a choice, God made them with free will”. Others/most are simply uneducated or under-read on the subject. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean their opinion should weigh on our conclusions. If you show most people an optical illusion and ask them if it appears to be moving, they’d say yes, even though science will tell you there’s nothing moving.

I personally am a hard deterministic regarding free will. I think we have a will but nothing about it is free. It is subject to natural laws just as a rock rolling down a cliff. That’s fine. There’s a related philosophical position of compatibilism, which believes that we have a determined will, but that the truth of the determination does not undercut our ability to talk as if and use the phrase free will as if we really do have such a thing. In this sense, compatibilists would say we don’t have the ability to do other than what we are determined to do, but since we might not yet know what we are determined to do, then that ignorance captures what is meant by free will. So compatibilists are determinists, they just think free will as a concept is compatible with that determinism.

I just disabled ghostery ad-block and that seems to work. Still have ublock going.

Would those numbers you’re citing be coming from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry? Are you literally taking the word of terrorists to try to make your point?

They wouldn’t condemn Hamas or the Oct 7th attacks, however.

Palestinian defense force scrambling to find new ways to blame Israel anyways

Based you don’t even bother to wear a mask anymore. Your pro-Palestine support is and has been nothing but anti-semitism and terrorist sympathization.

https://lemm.ee/post/11463523

“I agree there are many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree with this, but if you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves, we have the full right to do so, he added.”

Keep simping for terrorists.

Again and again, the pro-palestine comments show themselves to be nothing but demands Israel let themselves be endlessly attacked and destroyed. They have the right to defend themselves. This is what that looks like.

You destroy any threat to your survival and you’re justified in doing it. No different than you or I. Hamas was and is responsible for their actions. They chose to never have peace. They chose war.

You imply the actions of Hamas are caused by Israel caging and poking them. It’s excusatory. Hamas is responsible for their actions. They chose to murder babies. You know that. The more you ignore denouncing their actions, the more you support and sympathize with terrorists.

“I agree there are many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree with this, but if you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves, we have the full right to do so,” he added.

The comment no one in this community wants to respond to. Keep simping for terrorists and demanding Israel let themselves be destroyed.

There is no longterm solution with Hamas. They demand the complete destruction of Israel and all Jews. The Jewish people don’t have to roll over and let themselves be destroyed, even if internet keyboard warriors demand it. They’ll do what they must to survive, no different than you or I.

Because letting them go is letting Hamas go free and they will inevitably carry out plans to destroy Israel and all Jews. You know this. Calls to free palistine are nothing but calls to see Israel destroyed.

You make excuses for terrorists. Disgusting.

No, I won’t. You know it happened, that’s why you demand a source, pretending if I can’t produce one that you’re justified in your position. You’re not. You’re a liar, and an abuser, a defender and sympathizer of terrorists. Disgusting. If you insist someone be destroyed, I’d sooner it be the ones who refuse to live in peace. Good riddance.

Are you excusing the terrorist organization that invaded Israel and brutalized babies, including shooting and burning them? That’s what you chose to get on the internet and defend?

So you demand that Israel be destroyed. That’s what this is. Your pro-Palestine stance is nothing but an anti-zionist, anti-semitic position masquerading as love. Israel has the right to defend themselves. They have the weapons to defend themselves. They declared war on a terrorist organization, who committed acts you have yet to denounce. Brutalizing babies. Invading homes and murdering people, uploading it on their Facebook. You’re defending all of that. If that’s the case, I hope Israel is successful, and you haven’t given a single reason why I shouldn’t. There can be no one-state solution with Hamas next to them. There can be no two-state solution with Hamas next to them. You know this, but you don’t care, because you demand Israel be destroyed. There’s nothing to say to you then. I support Israel’s right to defend itself and that means destroying Hamas. If you think the nation with the strength to defend itself should just roll over and suicide, keep crying while Israel does what it must. I bet they’d love to go back to their homes and not have to worry about any of this, but they aren’t allowed to.

Lmao When did I say that? I’ve been quite careful about who I’ve accused. If you’re thinking is so singular you can’t process any nuance, stand to the side while Israel commits its war. You don’t understand who the pieces are and how the game is played.