Why is no free will a default?

Because there's no evidence of free will. You need evidence of a positive before a negative... a negative is assumed until there's evidence of its positive.

E.G: No ghosts is the default...until there is any evidence of ghosts its irrational to postulate such an entity and believe in it.

You don't start with ghosts and then try to find evidence that they DON'T EXIST. And this is the case with many things...

What evidence or reason is there to treat free will as a special case? And of course, don't now say: 'What evidence or reason is there to treat free will as NOT a special case' because there it would go again...requiring evidence for a negative before a positive....negative is default...positive needs evidence.

ONCE a positive HAS evidence....THEN you need evidence for the negative...you need to give evidence against the positive - because the positive now has support and there is a good reason to believe in it....but UNTIL there IS evidence of the positive.....the negative should be assumed...why believe in the positive?

Why should I believe in free will? Physics are either more random (indeterminism)... OR are totally predetermined (determinism)....where on earth does 'free will' fit into that equation? Where is the evidence?

EvF

You claim there is no evidence of free will. Have you ever looked or just accepted Dennet's claim there isn't? What would be proof of free will to you?

Well I'm not strictly claiming there is no evidence of free will. I may simply say there is no evidence; but I do this by default because what I mean is that I am at least assuming there is no free will until I know of any evidence.

What would prove free will for me? Well somehow some evidence showing that we can freely violate physics and do other than what it is making us do....whether physics if more random (indeterministic) or its totally predetermined (deterministic). I have no idea how that could be done because it seems totally weird to me. Like I said - I will assume there is no free will until any evidence is shown otherwise. I don't need absolute proof. SOME would be good for a start.

And btw, on the subject of Dennett, - on an earlier thread you said to me "you have been reading Dennett again haven't you?" when actually....I haven't read ANY Dennett...I've just seen 2 or 3 of his videos...that is all.

EvF

Why do you equate free will with violating physics?

I see as free will the ability to choose from a set of parameters, whether finite or infinite. Why is that not free will?

What do you mean by choose?

Our thoughts and actions are controlled by the physical laws of the universe right? Whether they are more random (indeterministic) or totally predetermined (deterministic) - where does the CHOICE come in?

If something is random how does that give us the choice to choose (indeterministic)...it just gives us the possibility perhaps....I just don't see where the choice comes in or know of any evidence for this 'free will' whatsoever.

Obviously with determinism, with everything being predetermined there is no choice whatsoever...only evitability/more freedom of possible things to do....

So although determinism makes 'free will' impossible....how on earth does indeterminism imply it? Physics being more random...how does randomness or unpredictability give us choice?

Dice, roulette wheels and random number generators...whether they are predetermined or are indeterministic...there's not really much choice there is there?

So where does the choice come in? How do you mean by choice? Where is the evidence for 'free will?' Determinism makes 'free will' impossible but how on earth does INdeterminism even remotely imply it; rather than just simply making the possibility perhaps... open?

EvF

First off, I hade a previous question you did not answer:

Quote:Why do you equate free will with violating physics?

(March 17, 2009 at 7:39 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Our thoughts and actions are controlled by the physical laws of the universe right?

I don't know, are they? What evidence do you have of that?

Well the physical universe follows physical laws....where is the evidence that we are exempt from them? Why should we be considered a special case? Until I know of any evidence I shall assume we are controlled by physical laws...

In response to your question..I equate free will to violating physics because as I said above....as far as I know the universe follows the physical laws of the universe...until I know of any evidence that they can be violated I will assume there is no free will...

If free will has to just follow the laws of the universe whether they are predetermined (deterministic) or more random and unpredictable (indeterministic) - then where does the choice come in? The physics just happen whether they are determined or more random and unpredictable...where does out choice come in other than evitability?

If by 'free will' you just mean evitability and freedom of possibility in general then I believe in free will.

If, however, - you mean that we can do other than what we WILL do...what WILL happen in the future.,...whether that's a determined future or its indetermined and can go many ways, then the thing is that...The future WILL happen whether its determined OR that it can go many different ways of course. The future is what's going to happen, whatever it is - so we can't change it. How can we do other than what the physical laws of the universe are simply doing? Whether its just totally determined or more random and unpredictable (indeterministic).

Where does the 'choice' come in? Physics does what it does, we do what we do...where is the evidence that we are an exception and we can over ride this? If by free you don't mean that...you just mean we have 'freedom' we have evitablity ....we can avoid things and do stuff....then of course I believe THAT....that's obvious.

But where does the choice come in if we are simply doing what we are doing and we can't do otherwise? If we do something else how did we 'choose' that? We just did it. Who says it wasn't simply the laws of the universe working...who says we have any power over them at all? And if we don't...where does the 'choice' come in...isn't it simply evitability? Where is the evidence of any 'choice'? What do you mean by 'choice'? We do what we do...whether its following unpredictable physics or predetermined physics I would think...where is the evidence that any 'free will' fits into the equation?

EvF