[rhelz]

Whatever free will is, this can't be the definition of it. Consider two computers, build for one and only one purpose: to compute the first 10 digits of pi. They do this without any external input. But one computer is made of vacuum tubes, one made of transistors, both of which computed the first 10 digits of pi.

They both took the same action (computing the first 10 digits of pi) and it was independent of how they were constructed, and absent any external stimulus. Yet they don't have free will.

Its harder than it looks to define free will; I'd encourage you to try again.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

They're both computing pi due to how they are constructed. If they were built to compute e and computed pi instead they would have free will.

You're misreading my description.

[rhelz]

Perhaps I did misread it. Let me try again. Your proposed definition is not adequate, because if something were constructed to have free will, then it would be exhibiting free will because it was constructed that way :-)

You first have to show that it is impossible to construct something in a way that it has free will. To show that, however, I think you'd need a definition of "free will" which is not "doing something it wasn't constructed to do" on pain of either circularity or contradiction.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

Your comment is nonsense. You think you're using logic but you're not making any sense.

[rhelz]

It would be more helpful if you could spell that out a bit.