>>12671095started skimming your picture. It looks like a religious cope that tries to play word games.
If you read my original post here (
>>12670976) I said that if our decisions and actions are JUST processes of our brains + if the universe is either deterministic or quantum-esque random = free will is not real, because
>In either case my will is a slave to either a mathematical equation or to a truly random dice.Now your pic seems to cope with this by obfuscation. I haven't read fully since it's not written well, and so probably not worth the effort.
My point is that the only reasonable possibilities, in my opinion, are that the brain is ENTIRELY responsible for consciousness and our decisions (my opinion as a medical researcher), and that the universe is either deterministic or quantum-random.
But then I went on to say
>For free will, my will would have to not be limited by these constraints. Consequently, some people retreat to the idea of a soul giving them free willWhich is essentially me saying, there is no reasonable reason to believe free will exists. However some people can come up with unreasonable copes if they like
Which is essentially what your picture seems to be grasping at
