(July 26, 2016 at 12:17 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I bought ice cream today.  I thought "Hmmmm, I think I would like some ice cream."  So walked into a corner store, looked at the selection, and thought, "Hmmmmm. . . which ice cream shall I choose today?  I think, today. . . vanilla."  So I bought the ice cream that I wanted.  

That's not an example of free will, it's my DEFINITION of it-- free will is being able to buy the motherfucking ice cream of your choice.

That's ableness, mate. Free Will is rather different. Free Will describes a magic way to circumvent all of the rules that govern the rest of the universe to make a "decision" by yourself, in a vacuum, uncaused and entirely "on your own" - whatever that means.

Well said, EP. Certainly in the incompatabilist sense anyway.

Again, I think people confuse the experience of making decisions with its objective mechanism. Objectively speaking, we are more like robots than anything else. We are imprisoned. We are destined to do a set amount of things, and there's nothing we can do about it. But to think that this somehow takes something away from life is merely an illusion. SInce you don't know what the future is going to bring, you really do live in the moment, even though you technically have no control over anything. Your experience of reality doesn't have to suffer because of this fact. It is simply a fact of nature and its not like we can even imagine the opposite(well, some think they can, but they can't). But still, there's something to learn from this knowledge. Like, being angry at people or retributive towards them doesn't make any sense anymore. Being angry at someone is the same as being angry at an object, in this new light.

Compatabilism is akin to trinitarianism: take incompatible concepts and mash them into a sophistry that sounds satisfying but falls apart the moment you start to think about it.

Anger can make sense if feeling it and expressing outrage helps discourage immorality and unethical behavior.

Compatabilism is the idea that free will in the legal pragmatic sense is the only kind of free will worth thinking about because it's the only kind that exists.

(July 26, 2016 at 12:33 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Anger can make sense if feeling it and expressing outrage helps discourage immorality and unethical behavior.

I'm not so sure about that, Evie, I think it's just an excuse to feel better.

But I'm talking more about what Sam talks about, anyway, like the way people judge a criminal for his acts in their minds and they don't another one who had a tumor discovered in his brain. Tumor or no tumor, they're both just as innocent in a sense. That doesn't mean they shouldn't both be locked up to keep the rest of us safe, it just means it's not their faults.

(July 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(July 26, 2016 at 12:17 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I bought ice cream today.  I thought "Hmmmm, I think I would like some ice cream."  So walked into a corner store, looked at the selection, and thought, "Hmmmmm. . . which ice cream shall I choose today?  I think, today. . . vanilla."  So I bought the ice cream that I wanted.  

That's not an example of free will, it's my DEFINITION of it-- free will is being able to buy the motherfucking ice cream of your choice.

That's ableness, mate. Free Will is rather different. Free Will describes a magic way to circumvent all of the rules that govern the rest of the universe to make a "decision" by yourself, in a vacuum, uncaused and entirely "on your own" - whatever that means.

If that's how you define free will, then I'm not surprised you don't believe it exists.  Maybe I missed a couple pages of this thread, but I'd be very surprised to find that anyone who DID believe in free will defined it as you have.

I'd define will as that about a person which brings intent to fruition.  For example, if I intend to move a leg, and it does in fact move, I've exercised my will.

Free will I'd describe as the ability to form intent based on my world view or other aspect of my personhood, and act on that intent without obstruction or coercion from another agent or other environmental factor.

OR. . . being able to buy the motherfucking ice cream of my choice.

I think anger is a natural human emotion that needn't be as long lasting once belief in free will is dropped but it's not something we could ever stop ourselves feeling in the first place. It's a natural reaction to feeling that yourself or those you care about are violated.

(July 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Again, I think people confuse the experience of making decisions with its objective mechanism. Objectively speaking, we are more like robots than anything else. We are imprisoned. We are destined to do a set amount of things, and there's nothing we can do about it. But to think that this somehow takes something away from life is merely an illusion. SInce you don't know what the future is going to bring, you really do live in the moment, even though you technically have no control over anything. Your experience of reality doesn't have to suffer because of this fact. It is simply a fact of nature and its not like we can even imagine the opposite(well, some think they can, but they can't). But still, there's something to learn from this knowledge. Like, being angry at people or retributive towards them doesn't make any sense anymore. Being angry at someone is the same as being angry at an object, in this new light.

Read my above post, and I'll explain why it makes perfect sense to be angry at people or retributive towards them.  The world views they base their intent on are shitty world views (in your estimation), and the personhood upon which they build intent are shitty personhoods.  I don't care whether or not in an alternative universe the fucker who honked at me to resume driving when there was obviously a car stopped in front of me could have acted differently.  I care that, without compulsion from me or anyone else, his shitty personhood has expressed itself in a way that's annoying to me.  Fuck that guy!

You guys can argue philosophical points all you want, but I use words as an attempt to categorize and explain my experiences, and free will is as self-apparent as the existence of the self.  Arguments which in this way defeat my attempt to use language are those up with which I will not put.