What does a good answer to this question look like in this context? Genuinely curious what they were looking for.
Imo the real question is whether humans have intentions. It seems like if you look at it rationally, we're just collections of chemicals reacting with each other. Set the initial conditions and then the whole thing is deterministic. It's pretty uncomfortable to think this though, so I think it's best if we avoid the subject.
Imagine you are on a rollercoaster: you know your course is pre-determined, but you can't see too far ahead, and it sure is a fun and surprising ride along the way.
If quantum physics theories are correct than there's always some amount of pure randomness in the game, making it impossible to create perfectly deterministic and repeatable system of any significant complexity.
The real answer is that decisions exist in a different frame of reference. Some philosophers are stuck in a model in which decisions were taken by the soul, an inmaterial entity. So if decisions are generated by physical processes, they're an ilusion.
But that's as idiotic as it can be. Our brain is a material system and of course decisions are generated by physical processes inside it. The interesting question is how much of us is malleable and how we can make our decisions to change ourselves and our own decision making process.
Good level design is basically when a player traverses a predetermined path while not feeling that he is on rails...
Example og good level design, Half Life games. A player Traverse the world as if they can go anywhere but they always pick the right way.
Other example is Dark souls. Keeps you in a loops so you never hit a "dead end"
This reminds me of Sam Harris' book "Freewill", I recommend it to the people who believe in freewill.
By the way, what determines the whole chain of deterministic events?
Also Elbow Room, or, better, Freedom Evolves.
I once read Dennett's critiques and I remember I didn't find them very convincing. But right now I don't remember his arguments. I won't analyze them right now as to be able to comment in this topic. If you mention Dennett's main argument against what Harris says about freewill I'd thank you.
Marvin Minsky said we are 'meat machines'. What does Dennet say against that? (considering machines as deterministic).
I'm afraid I don't remember the exact contents of the Harris/Dennett debate; I should probably reread it myself. :)
any kind of freedom at all, emerges from the layers upon layers upon layers that make up the existence of what we call a living creature.
I don't see why layers upon layers would imply freedom. A complex Java web framework may have layers upon layers of abstractions, and that may make its operation hard to understand fully. But that doesn't mean it isn't deterministic.
Spinoza wrote: Men are mistaken in thinking themselves free; their opinion is made up of consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they are determined.