Super! Did they address the question I've asked here?
Yes, based on the common usage meaning of free will, which is what I’m using. Free will is the ability to make choices, to act at our own discretion.
So in other words, your definition of "free will" relates to the appearance of being able to make a decsion, rather than the actuality of whether different choices can actually be made? Fair enough, I'm not going to argue with that - I quite agree that everyone (myself included) tends to operate and function as if actual choice can exist.
But I note that you did NOT actually offer an answer to my question, as to how the third option to causality and randomess actually operates.
Everything you said and wrote today was compelled. You were compelled to write that post above. Every word in it was compelled. If you wrote some words then changed your mind and edited them then that was a compulsion as well. You had no choice but to write exactly the words you wrote in your post above. You had no say in the matter at all.
Yup. All true.
You say it feels an odd thing to believe. I agree - totally counter intuitive. Doesn't mean it is wrong.
How about this as an explanation? Suppose the firing of neurons in your brain is a mix of causal and random events (due to quantum indeterminacy), which, due to the random component, constantly change the pattern of aggregate firings. Each neuron has, on average, 10,000 excitatory and inhibitory connections to other neurons and the sum of the impulses on those connections determines whether a particular neuron fires. There are around 100 trillion neurons in your brain so you can bet there are millions of them involved in making choices or decisions. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to call the ebb and flow of those randomly influenced patterns of millions of nerve impulses free will?
Call it what you like - and I think that's an accurate description of reality. But nothing there explains how it is possible for an alternate "decision" to be made given a particular pattern of those 100 trillion neurons. THAT is what I'm asking you to explain - how, for one particular pattern of those neurons, the following split-second's pattener was NOT inevitable through causality, nor a random result.
Can you show me where you obtained those figures, please? I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard of a binding contract that wasn’t signed by one or more individuals. As far as I know, it is a legal requirement that for a contract to be binding, the person or persons signing it must do so of their own free will.
You missed my point. Yes, the "were you coerced into signing" is, currently, a valid part of contract law. But if you pick up any textbook on contact law, you'll see very little is to do with that aspect, and the bulk is to do with fairness of penalty for failure, etc. But that's a minor point, TBH.
Your responses appeared to address only criminal acts by individuals such as stealing or murder. I’m wondering about the rest of the law. For example, how would we determine liability in cases of negligence if people couldn’t be held responsible for their actions?
Very simply. Did the person take the actions that they were legally obliged to take - yes or no? And there is your "negligence" right there. As a result of what a person did, something happened, which affected others. Ultimately, THAT is the question asked of negligence cases - the reason WHY they did what they did is considered mitigation.
You seem to want to place blame. MY point is that although, sure, the person did not have "choice" in what they did, there still need to be steps taken to ensure that they will not repeat the poor action - which may be retraining, or removal from the job (both of which already happen).
You also seem to continually want to misrepresent my position - "how would we (do x) if people couldn’t be held responsible for their actions
" - in that bold section there. Please re-read my part about action taken for criminal acts which (I thought) was fairly specific that we don't "blame" a person, but that we DO recognise that having taken a particular detrimental action once indicates a likelihood that it will be repeated, and therefore rehabilitation/retraining is called for. I was quite, quite clear that "punishment" was not a factor in the process, so I'm confused as to why you are still insisting that my view requires the placement of "blame".