Full comment
> Only if you start by assuming that "free" will must, necessarily, be supernatural. But of course, if you start that way, you've started everything in bad faith, because you're going to reject any possible view of the world that relies on science instead of magic. I'm willing to admit there are parts of science we don't understand, and that people often label this as "magic". In my opinion, sometimes humans call it religion and use it as a form of hope as we continue in the quest to know the unknown. Admittedly, any tool can be used to do harm too, and clearly in 2016, many of us can see how many religions have been perverted. Yet at the same time I think religious folks tend to levy the same criticism of strict scientists. Anyway, I have no beef with either side, and I know I won't be able to convince anyone here that science can also be viewed as a religion with its own biases. Plus I believe that most of the time science is great. I just don't know about this quest for true AI. It feels religion-y to me. > No sensible definition of free will says that you can will yourself to desire slood (a substance you've never heard of because it doesn't actually exist and has no properties even as a hypothetical) or will yourself out of the influence of gravity. Right, no, I didn't mean it like that. The thing I wanted to share is that free will and determinism cannot co-exist, in my opinion, for the reason stated in my last comment. Say I have a choice - pizza or pasta. If I choose
