Nilay

I am 20. I've been reading books for as long as I can remember. There's a place called the Internet Archive. It has an open library. There are lots of books there in lots of languages. I sometimes read books from there. It is for free btw. https://archive.org/details/@nilay_2606/lists/1/the-books-i-want-to-read This is my account.

Yeah and I agree

Yeah and I agree.

Yeah I agree the issue isn't whether we can actually process the data within our existence but whether everything is theoretically expressible in a deterministic equation. Our limited knowledge capacity doesn't disprove determinism it just shows our epistemic boundaries. Not fully understanding how a computer works doesn't mean the computer has free will, it only means we have limits to our knowledge.

Hey 20f here. I love books too. I also got banned from Reddit lol. You wanna talk?

Yeah, I really can't forgive them either. It's not only about deterring others from doing the same it's also because we have empathy. In normal brains, the empathy circuits (like mirror neurons and prefrontal areas) work as they should, so we feel the pain others cause but for some people that system is broken or wired differently from the start. Still society has to hold them accountable.

I'd pick the same drink every single time, and that makes sense to me as my choice under those conditions. It feels like compatibilism: free will as acting according to my own motivations, even if those are fully determined. But honestly, I'm still leaning toward determinism being mostly true our actions seem rooted in genetics, environment, childhood coding, and brain states that we don't ultimately control. We can overcome patterns through therapy, awareness, etc., which gives a sense of freedom, but even that overcoming desire/ability is probably caused by prior factors too. So I'm not 100% hard determinist (because practical change feels real and meaningful), but I'm not fully compatibilist either— it sometimes feels like redefining 'free will' to fit determinism. Quantum uncertainty adds some unpredictability, but as you said, it's just randomness, not 'willed' control, so it doesn't rescue libertarian free will. At the end of the day, I agree accountability is crucial we still need to hold people responsible for actions to keep society functioning. How do you personally draw the line where 'conditioned choice' becomes 'free enough' for moral responsibility?

When a quantum event collapses in the brain, the result is unpredictable yet this randomness is still not something you control. True free will would require a selection process that is neither purely random nor strictly deterministic, but genuinely willed. Randomness just introduces chaos; it doesn’t produce the sense of "I chose this".

Our genetics and environment (especially childhood experiences) basically program us and shape our brains. A lot of what we do stems from those early codes we were given. But we can overcome them through therapy, awareness, new experiences, etc. That said, if the very desire and ability to overcome those patterns weren’t wired into us from the start (genetics, upbringing, etc.). That’s a different story.

​Exactly. If the laws of physics are absolute, then the brain—which is made of atoms—must follow those laws. Every choice is just a chemical reaction following a set path. The fact that we don't have a computer 'big' enough to calculate it doesn't mean the equation doesn't exist.

If an action is 100% predictable based on inputs (hunger, preference, brain state), then it’s not a choice it’s a reaction. Just because we feel like we are choosing doesn't mean we are. We are just witnessing the result of a complex biological equation that has already been solved by our neurons. What do you think?