Since you keep bringing it up, I would like to point out that the definition of free will as stated in the OP is terrible.
Bradskii said:
But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different.
I don't know what that's supposed to be the definition of, but it's definitely not the definition of a free will choice. And the inclusion of the word 'ability' infers that it's not the definition of a 'random' choice either, because it involves some type of agency.
Yet, that is exactly what is commonly meant by "free will", promoted by all kinds of people, Christians, etc, etc. And that's (I assume) why
@Bradskii wrote the OP.
With that in mind, free will choices are absolutely based upon prior events, only with the added elements of memories, experiences, biases, etc. combined with potential outcomes, and the contemplation thereof. Now you would no doubt argue that all of these then become 'prior conditions' in the formation of the eventual choice. Which is true, but they're 'prior conditions' created by the 'self', and not externally to it. Hence the conditions upon which the final decision is based is ultimately a product of the 'self', and while based upon conditions outside of the self, those conditions aren't what dictate the final outcome... the 'self' is.
Nononono. "Go get your own dirt!",
You need to do a definition, or your description is lost in the weeds.
No, they are not prior conditions created by self, if self is doing it uncaused. And there is the point. Self is itself caused, so what it does is caused, and that, externally. Self is a product of antecedent fact, events—conditions all. No need for the word, "free", there.
Think of the 'self' as a data processing device that's functionally separate from any external data sources.
No. That would be a false place to start thinking. 'Self' is not functionally separate from any external source—data or otherwise. It may feel spontaneous, but it is not. It is only willed.
The external data sources are functionally inert. They do nothing. All of the data processing is done by the data processing device, i.e. the 'self'. The self is also responsible for any internal updating and maintenance thereof, making the system completely independent from the outside world for anything other than data.
Still assumes the self is itself uncaused, ultimately and completely logical, and just as bad, without biases or preferences
Now, as to what would occur if we could go back and replay prior events exactly as they happened, then the outcome would be impossible to predict. If the 'self' is a truly deterministic device, then the outcome should be exactly the same... every time. It shouldn't vary from one iteration to the next. However there's no reason to think that the 'self' is entirely deterministic, and while the outcome would never be random, it could either be probabilistic, stochastic or some combination thereof.
Why not. Can you show the 'Self' to be not entirely deterministic? You haven't yet. 'Random'—even chaotic, as in, 'random within limits'—are like 'chance'— only OUR way of dealing with our ignorance. As RC Sproul said, "'Chance' is short for, 'I don't know.'"
Not that I would expect you to read the whole thread, but we've dealt with probability. Truth is, nothing ever happens except what does happen, and so, we have no empirical reason to think anything else but whatever does happen can happen. Probability is not a working principle. It is weighted guessing.
But the point in all of this is that that the only functionally active component in the decision making process is the human brain. Anything else is just data. And while the brain may in fact function deterministically, it still does so independently from any outside data source.
Not so. The brain has habits, tendencies, discrepancies and confusions, disorientations, even preferences, chemical thought avoidances, chemical fancies, reasons for thought and patterns of thought endemic to humanity, (not to ravens and whales), and it is not a first cause in itself—the brain, the mind, thought, etc is all caused, just as the person possessing of it is caused to exist. And that, by outside fact. We are not self-existent.
