Libet’s experiment, types of decisions, and nihilism

You claim (and rightly so) that a determinist has no real reason to decide to do something, because even if he decided to lie in bed all day and stare at the ceiling, it would turn out that he had to do it and had no other option.
And since you also agree that not all of our decisions are free, and some are deterministic as in Libet's example, do you think that in such cases we should simply do nothing? If someone asks me to press a button whenever I feel like it, would it be foolish to decide when I feel like pressing it?

In the deterministic view, if he pressed, he had to press. So what is the point of this question?

And you had to answer his question (because that's what you created the site for).

You still haven't demonstrated a single act of free choice.
It's like talking about the existence of unicorns without giving even a single example of a unicorn in reality.

So on that I agree with you, that there is free choice, in the conceptual world of the thinking person.

I think some of the chatter is built on the foundation of the servant of God; he alone is free.

Posk, I ate a cucumber today and I think I had a free choice whether to eat it or not (and how wide to cut the slices and whether to peel strips of the peel). What's wrong with this example?

Rabbi Michi,
This is not only in the ‘deterministic view’, but also in the libertarian view, because you admit that decisions of this type are not free but are deterministic (and therefore you claim that Libet's experiment is irrelevant to the question of free will).
So you agree that in decisions of this type, a person is expected to decide nothing and do nothing?

As I said. I have no problem with your opinion. “There is free choice, in the world of concepts of the thinking person”.

But physically we live in a world with physical laws. And in this reality what happens is dictated by the power of the laws. Even if you strongly believe that Neta Claus will come. He will not come in reality. Unless you identify your worldview with reality. That is, hallucination.

Ahad Ha'am, I answered exactly that.

Posk, so what example are you expecting? You claim a priori that there is no free choice and everything is deterministic, but for some reason you present your argument as if you just didn't give an example. There is an example of eating a cucumber and each side describes it according to its method. I see it as a non-deterministic free choice (physics didn't make me decide to eat it) and you don't.

Common sense says that there are no unicorns, no Santa Claus, and no free will.
All of these concepts stem from feelings, desires, and passions, not from scientific experiments.
Nature shows the opposite of those feelings. And man must choose whether he follows reason or emotion.

Okay, I just don't understand why you present your argument as if no example was given. There is an example on which the dispute is based, and in your opinion, common sense generally and sweepingly rules that there is no free choice. I didn't understand your subtle point that a person does choose whether to follow reason or emotion, and whether you mean free choice in the non-deterministic sense.

The example you gave is that of a cucumber and a mouth that gnaws on it. These are examples from the physical world that, as far as common sense goes, says that it operates not freely but with clear laws.

You claim from emotion that it is a free choice. One of the reasons for that feeling is that you did not feel the reason why you chose to eat a cucumber. Emotion. It is not proof. That is how they once proved the existence of gods, demons, and spirits. They did not understand the reason for things. That is how religions were born.

Rabbi Michi,
Do you act like this in your life? In every dilemma of this kind, do you abandon your will and let things happen on their own?

You claim out of emotion that it is not free choice and you have no proof either. No one has claimed to provide proof of free choice, only to say that there is no proof to the contrary and that the inner sense of reasonableness favors the free existence of choice. Everything is as simple as baby food.

There is no problem that what I claim stems from emotion. The basis is scientific. There are laws of physics.

With you, the basis is emotional. Only because this thought makes you feel good. More precisely, only because the negation of this thought makes you feel bad. That is why you believe in it.

I do not have this barrier. I would not mind believing that there is free choice. On the contrary. It would be consistent with the feeling that there is no reason that forces me to decide things.

I need to be precise. It is not “believing that there is no free choice” but rather “thinking that there is no free choice.” Because in terms of the emotion that belongs to faith, every person is forced to think that they have free choice for the reasons I described.

In my opinion, you didn't describe me correctly. Unlike some wise and wise people, for example, I think there is no hint of a sensory/judgmental/experiential projection between determinism and choice, and in my opinion, the question of yes, choice, no, choice is also blown out of proportion and for some reason has become a respectable discussion instead of a specific question that is of limited, curious interest. But the possibility is consistent and not exaggerated at all, that's all.

Ahad Ha'am, when I don't have an explicit decision while I'm thinking, I really leave it to simmer on its own.

Doesn't it depend on the type of dilemma?
Does a dilemma like pressing a button require an explicit decision?

It has become an inflated debate because it gives people the feeling that they are God and it makes them feel good. In other words, pride, as usual, has blown things out of proportion.

The question of whether man's choices are free is a scientific question. And meanwhile there is no scientific reason to think that they are free. There is only an emotional or instinctive reason.

Rabbi Michi,
“Doesn't it depend on the type of dilemma?
In a dilemma like pressing a button, does an explicit decision belong?”

Ahad Ha'am, what's not clear? Pressing a button is not a decision. It's picking, not choosing.

Is it appropriate to turn picking into chosing?
For example: When debating whether to press the button. I will stop, seriously consider the sides, why to press and why not to press, and then make an informed decision. Would that be chosing?

There are no sides here, so what will you consider. If there are any significant sides, it will of course be Chu’sing.
Well, I think we've completely exhausted ourselves.

Rabbi, there is such an experiment with this that they brought you here,
https://rationalbelief.org.il/%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%97%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D/

ht tps://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%93% D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA

I know. I referred to this experiment not long ago, and I also discussed it in the last lesson I gave in the series on free choice.

Can I have a YouTube link to the lesson where you discussed Liad Modric's experiment?

Lesson 11:
https://youtu.be/Q2w8abWRiGo