[davemp]

> Not only that, but randomness and determinism are equally against the (casual) idea of free will.

I'm not sure that I'd agree. Maybe the layman doesn't think about how to reconcile determinism with their concept of free will, but it is possible. Talking about free will without a working definition is hard.

If free will is: "You are free to make any choices presented to you."

Then it becomes simple to argue that you are in fact making these choices regardless of whether what makes up you is pre-determined. The same you would of course make the same choices, but then it is still you making them. The outcomes and opportunity of the choices is irrelevant.

[lordlimecat]

I'd define free will as used by the average person to mean the ability to make decisions that are based at least in part on something other than your makeup and environment.

[davemp]

I'll go poll the world and get back to you to see if you align ;)

[naasking]

Already been done. They do not: https://philpapers.org/rec/ANDWCI-3

[coldtea]

Or so says a paper. Assuming no methodological errors and replication, in which Psychology (this being posted in "Philosophical Psychology" is a very bad culprit, and stats/polls even more so).

[naasking]

Let's be fair, it's more than one paper. That's just the latest in a whole series of papers empirically testing lay people's intuitions on this question (see the citations).

[coldtea]

>Then it becomes simple to argue that you are in fact making these choices regardless of whether what makes up you is pre-determined. The same you would of course make the same choices, but then it is still you making them. The outcomes and opportunity of the choices is irrelevant.

I made the same argument in my comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18607762