Most Humans Do NOT Have Completely Frree Will

[Ignorant]

"Will"= willpower.

Your willpower compels you. It is not free because it motivates you rather than you motivating it.

And ultimately other external factors cause the willpower to have power.

I'm sorry, but it's not very clear what you mean. Let me try and see if I've got it:

- The part of people which compels them to a particular act is the willpower.
- Freedom would consist in people motivating their own willpower to a particular act, but...
- External factors (and not internal personal input) cause the willpower to have power.

Therefore: The willpower is not free.

Is that what you're saying?

[GrandizerII]

@ Irrational

Well, the will isn't free. The concept of the will being free is nonsensical. Why should we try to redefine free will into something less nonsensical?

The danger is equivocation. If "free will" just means "unconcerned will" then the question "Does free will exist?" was pointless asking anyway because everyone already knows that our wills aren't always coerced -- compatabilism is a dodge that ignores the real issue which is that libertarian free will does not exist and yet so many people believe in it or at least behave as if it does... we hold people absolutely responsible because "they could have done otherwise" which is false, they couldn't of any free will of their own.

I agree with you about the whole responsibility stuff, but that's another topic. My question to you is: why is not being coerced not an indicator of freedom? After all, how do you normally define freedom?

Compatabilism is as nonsensical as pantheism. It's like "The existence of God is not the issue, the real issue is why should we define God as something nonsensical and not instead define God as simply the universe itself?"

Well, I'm fine with people equating God to such a spectacular magnificent thing as the universe as long as they make it clear that's what they mean by God.

On a related note, some people experience something really deep when they're contemplating the universe, existence, and all that. And to them, that is God. In that sense, God does exist as a metaphor of some sort.

[RozKek]

I'm curious, if you think we have no free will, how would a world where we have free will look like?

If we were 100% independent of everything else, everyone would be extremly happy, there would be no addictions etc.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I'm curious, if you think we have no free will, how would a world where we have free will look like?

If we were 100% independent of everything else, everyone would be extremly happy, there would be no addictions etc.

Actually no.
100% independent of all outside variables = non existence.
Everything in the physical world is dependent on *something*,whether it be the physical laws or the amount of money in the bank
This just goes to show how flawed you are on your views of free will. Essentially you're arguing "we exist, therefore no free will." because by your definition we have to not exist to have free will.

[bennyboy]

I'm curious, if you think we have no free will, how would a world where we have free will look like?

If we were 100% independent of everything else, everyone would be extremly happy, there would be no addictions etc.

I some have a bad definition of "will" in mind.  It seems they think "will" means "the Holy power of God to do whatever you want."  That's not right.  Will is the desire of the thinking agent to use its influence on the environment with a goal in mind.  Free will is the ability of that thinking agent to act without an external compulsion, i.e. that one isn't a marionette.

So in the case of drug use, a person has the desire to do a drug, and acts (or occasionally chooses not to) to procure and use it. Freely.

[RozKek]

If we were 100% independent of everything else, everyone would be extremly happy, there would be no addictions etc.

I some have a bad definition of "will" in mind.  It seems they think "will" means "the Holy power of God to do whatever you want."  That's not right.  Will is the desire of the thinking agent to use its influence on the environment with a goal in mind.  Free will is the ability of that thinking agent to act without an external compulsion, i.e. that one isn't a marionette.

So in the case of drug use, a person has the desire to do a drug, and acts (or occasionally chooses not to) to procure and use it.  Freely.

Yes. I was just adressing 100% complete free will independent of any variables

[RozKek]

If we were 100% independent of everything else, everyone would be extremly happy, there would be no addictions etc.

Actually no.
100% independent of all outside variables = non existence.
Everything in the physical world is dependent on *something*,whether it be the physical laws or the amount of money in the bank
This just goes to show how flawed you are on your views of free will. Essentially you're arguing "we exist, therefore no free will."  because by your definition we have to not exist to have free will.

Wasn't my view. Anyway my real view (if it matters) is that I don't know whether we have free will. I jus doubt it very much since I haven't found a logical way to describe how it would work and arise. And there are no scientific explanations of how its mechanics would be. I don't know whether it exists or not but I'm leaning towards the non existence view. In the end I'm fine with either.

[GrandizerII]

I some have a bad definition of "will" in mind.  It seems they think "will" means "the Holy power of God to do whatever you want."  That's not right.  Will is the desire of the thinking agent to use its influence on the environment with a goal in mind.  Free will is the ability of that thinking agent to act without an external compulsion, i.e. that one isn't a marionette.

So in the case of drug use, a person has the desire to do a drug, and acts (or occasionally chooses not to) to procure and use it.  Freely.

Yes. I was just adressing 100% complete free will independent of any variables

Which is an oxymoron. Because a will, by definition, is dependent on the nature of the person possessing the will.

So 100% free will would be more meaningful if understood as will that is free in the sense that we normally understand free to be (i.e., free from coercion).

For some reason, and I was guilty of this myself not too long ago, once we think about free will, our idea of free shifts all of a sudden to free from anything when we normally don't think of free that way in everyday conversation.

[bennyboy]

I some have a bad definition of "will" in mind.  It seems they think "will" means "the Holy power of God to do whatever you want."  That's not right.  Will is the desire of the thinking agent to use its influence on the environment with a goal in mind.  Free will is the ability of that thinking agent to act without an external compulsion, i.e. that one isn't a marionette.

So in the case of drug use, a person has the desire to do a drug, and acts (or occasionally chooses not to) to procure and use it.  Freely.

Yes. I was just adressing 100% complete free will independent of any variables

I think as with many philosophical arguments, this comes down more to semantics than to a description of reality.  It depends more on how you define "free will" than on our experience of making decisions.

For example, to what degree do one's own feelings constitute a part of the self (which is free)?  If you see addiction as something external to the self, like a kind of heavy chain or something, then an addict very clearly is not acting freely-- you have to believe that without discomfort of the addiction, he/she would immediately choose to stop doing the drug.  If, on the other hand, you see the suffering as OF the self, then it has nothing to do with free will, because of course the person will act on that addiction and choose to do the drug. In this case, there would be a lack of free will only if the person's body literally moved of its own volition, without the knowledge or conscious compliance of the person-- and while this may be claimed sometimes, I doubt that it ever really happens.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

If a drug addict could switch off his addiction if he pleased if he had free will, according to what most of you define it as - wouldn't it mean he lack the free will to remain addicted? Lmao!