(July 30, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 9:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Sure it's free.  Nobody is either compelling me or preventing me from expressing my will according to my nature as a person.

Can you comprehend living in a world without language?  Imagine that you could vocalize yet you could not speak, that you could hear but yet could not listen, that you could see yet you could not read or sign.  Can you imagine living your life in such a world?  I can't.  But, yet, this is a world in which many individuals, normal today, will find themselves living in come tomorrow due to a condition called Broca's aphasia.  Would you be able to express yourself if a stroke or traumatic injury occurred to your brain?  Probably not, at least not to the degree that you can now.  Point is that your mental state would be altered due to a change in your brain's state, which means that if "free will" exists than it must be an emergent property of your brain.

This list is nearly endless here; I could go on but I'll stop.

Sure.  If you lack the ability to form and express intent, you cannot be said to have free will, or possibly even will.

It is my definition that will is the expression of the intent of a sentient agent. If that sentience is damaged, then the intent will be formed differently, or not at all, or the agent will no longer to manifest that intent in the world outside himself.

(July 31, 2016 at 4:40 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Can you comprehend living in a world without language?  Imagine that you could vocalize yet you could not speak, that you could hear but yet could not listen, that you could see yet you could not read or sign.  Can you imagine living your life in such a world?  I can't.  But, yet, this is a world in which many individuals, normal today, will find themselves living in come tomorrow due to a condition called Broca's aphasia.  Would you be able to express yourself if a stroke or traumatic injury occurred to your brain?  Probably not, at least not to the degree that you can now.  Point is that your mental state would be altered due to a change in your brain's state, which means that if "free will" exists than it must be an emergent property of your brain.

This list is nearly endless here; I could go on but I'll stop.

Sure.  If you lack the ability to form and express intent, you cannot be said to have free will, or possibly even will.

It is my definition that will is the expression of the intent of a sentient agent.  If that sentience is damaged, then the intent will be formed differently, or not at all, or the agent will no longer to manifest that intent in the world outside himself.

That's the point -- if a physical brain is responsible for a person's intent and that physical brain is subject to physical laws (namely, the conservation laws), then how can a person's intent be truly "free"?

(July 31, 2016 at 8:10 am)Jehanne Wrote: That's the point -- if a physical brain is responsible for a person's intent and that physical brain is subject to physical laws (namely, the conservation laws), then how can a person's intent be truly "free"?

It's free because no external influence is either compelling or preventing the expression of the will as behavior. The person gets to decide for himself how he will act.

(July 31, 2016 at 8:13 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 8:10 am)Jehanne Wrote: That's the point -- if a physical brain is responsible for a person's intent and that physical brain is subject to physical laws (namely, the conservation laws), then how can a person's intent be truly "free"?

It's free because no external influence is either compelling or preventing the expression of the will as behavior.  The person gets to decide for himself how he will act.

There are always external influences; even when you are asleep, your body is still very much awake.

(July 31, 2016 at 8:29 am)Jehanne Wrote: There are always external influences; even when you are asleep, your body is still very much awake.

Influences are not compulsion or obstruction. For example, seeing a beautiful girl might influence me to seek sex or at least to flirt a little. But it's still an expression of my own intent. If I were gay, her presence might have a very different effect on me. Therefore, it's my personhood which perceives the girl and then draws an intent, not the object of perception which "forces" my intent.

Obviously, since will is the manifesting of intent in the external world, one must have some perception of that world and ideas about how one wants to interact with it. But that's not an infringement on free will-- it's the arena in which free will seeks to act.

(July 31, 2016 at 8:10 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 4:40 am)bennyboy Wrote: Sure.  If you lack the ability to form and express intent, you cannot be said to have free will, or possibly even will.

It is my definition that will is the expression of the intent of a sentient agent.  If that sentience is damaged, then the intent will be formed differently, or not at all, or the agent will no longer to manifest that intent in the world outside himself.

That's the point -- if a physical brain is responsible for a person's intent and that physical brain is subject to physical laws (namely, the conservation laws), then how can a person's intent be truly "free"?

Because you do what you want to do most of the time. Shouldn't this reasonably be deemed freedom?

(July 31, 2016 at 10:26 am)Irrational Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 8:10 am)Jehanne Wrote: That's the point -- if a physical brain is responsible for a person's intent and that physical brain is subject to physical laws (namely, the conservation laws), then how can a person's intent be truly "free"?

Because you do what you want to do most of the time. Shouldn't this reasonably be deemed freedom?

No, because you don't decide what it is you want to do either. In the everday life you can say it's freedom but that's not the freedom people generally talk about when they mention free will.

(July 31, 2016 at 10:27 am)RozKek Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 10:26 am)Irrational Wrote: Because you do what you want to do most of the time. Shouldn't this reasonably be deemed freedom?

No, because you don't decide what it is you want to do either.

Then who does?

(July 31, 2016 at 10:30 am)Irrational Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 10:27 am)RozKek Wrote: No, because you don't decide what it is you want to do either.

Then who does?

No one, it was either determined when the universe began or it's the same but partly random. You're just the observer and experiencer.

(July 31, 2016 at 10:39 am)RozKek Wrote:

(July 31, 2016 at 10:30 am)Irrational Wrote: Then who does?

No one, it was either determined when the universe began or it's the same but partly random. You're just the observer and experiencer.

So no decision is made is what you're saying? Then what is this process we do then that appears as if it is a decision?