If free will was not real

[GrandizerII]

Again, under your subjective definition of "free", if something is predetermined, it is not free.

But I don't consider randomness/spontaneity to be equal to freedom in the context of human freedom. My idea of freedom, in the context of ths topic, is a very reasonable one in that freedom of choice is that which is exercised in accordance with one's intent or desire. Ok? That's all there is to it. I can do what I want a lot of the time. You can do what you want a lot of the time. That's freedom.

And Rozkek, please stop treating us as if we have no idea what libertarian free will means or entails. Perhaps rather than just arguing strawman with us over and over again, how about you consider what we're actually trying to say instead? I'm not a newbie when it comes to this topic, and I used to a hard determinist myself as a matter of fact (up until fairly recently), so I know very well what libertarian free will is about. I also, for the record, do not find the idea of no libertarian free will to be depressing. This isn't an emotional struggle for me. The free will you speak is illogical, of course. I am in no way disputing that. But again and again and again, argue against my idea of freedom. Tell me how my idea of freedom is irrational.

How is something free if it's determined, enlighten me. If we're going to be that subjective I can give a rock a free will.

You can do what you want, I know that, everyone does. But what you want, in other words what your will is isn't your free choice =))))))

Strawmanning? I'm saying even your definition of free will doesn't exist. The free will I speak of is not illogical, it can be applied and should be applied e.g when someone is going to be sentenced for a crime. It also makes, at least me understand people better.

How does the free will I speak of not exist? My notion of free will is logical (even the other side agrees with this), but the question is whether or not the definition is reasonable. This is what should be debated.

And libertarian free will is not illogical? Huh? I'm confused now, I thought you were arguing it is illogical. Or do you mean it's practical, rather than logical?

A rock has zero free will under my definition because it lacks intention anyway. And yes, my will is predetermined, but again, under my definition, freedom and predeterminism are not opposites of each other. All what matters (and is sufficient) for my definition is that I do what I want.

[RozKek]

How is something free if it's determined, enlighten me. If we're going to be that subjective I can give a rock a free will.

You can do what you want, I know that, everyone does. But what you want, in other words what your will is isn't your free choice =))))))

Strawmanning? I'm saying even your definition of free will doesn't exist. The free will I speak of is not illogical, it can be applied and should be applied e.g when someone is going to be sentenced for a crime. It also makes, at least me understand people better.

How does the free will I speak of not exist? My notion of free will is logical (even the other side agrees with this), but the question is whether or not the definition is reasonable. This is what should be debated.

And libertarian free will is not illogical? Huh? I'm confused now, I thought you were arguing it is illogical. Or do you mean it's practical, rather than logical?

A rock has zero free will under my definition because it lacks intention anyway. And yes, my will is predetermined, but again, under my definition, freedom and predeterminism are not opposites of each other. All what matters (and is sufficient) for my definition is that I do what I want.

ah well shit, I mixed them up. I didn't care enough to carefully read through, my apologies. 

Alright, you do you, cool.

[bennyboy]

You asked me how I know that the universe is deterministic, I answered by telling you to read some physics, what are you on about?

What you are saying isn't supported by modern physics.

And what I'm saying is even your definition of free will doesn't exist because you are encountering obstruction and compulsion from the outside world because everything is deterministic. In a deterministic world a single butterfly's wing flapping can change your entire thought process in the future. It's not free. So I am fucking arguing against your free will, and I'm not saying it can't be free. Haven't you noticed how severely you have reduced your definition of free will in order to argue it into existence?

No. I've literally defined will, and free will, the exact same throughout this entire thread. I said what they mean to me, and proceeded to argue for them. What I HAVE noticed is that you keep quoting me and then ignoring them over and over and over again.

Also, I asked you why are you free unless a foreign agent is holding a gun to your head? Why a foreign agent? Is there something special about the foreign agent that makes him able to strip away the free from your will? Is the foreign agent also more than particles determined to do whatever they're going to do?

I am a particular collection of "particles," and the foreign agent is a separate, and different collection of particles. If that foreign collection of particles interferes with my ability to form and act on intent, then it is an impediment to my free will. If that foreign collection of particles merely presents me with information, and I can form intent freely based on that information and act on it, it is NOT an impediment to my free will.

You keep talking about determinism, despite (1) being wrong that science necessarily supports it, and (2) it being 100% irrelevant to my definition of free will.

Sam Harris isn't a buddhist nor spiritual, he simply meditates and he has studied buddhism if that makes you think he's a buddhist. And if I'm wrong then my apologies, but that doesn't matter. He doesn't believe in God or any woo bullshit. 

He's Buddhist. He found the one religion he can practice which doesn't require a belief in God. Arguing he doesn't believe in any woo bullshit is fine, so long as you believe Buddhism isn't "woo bullshit."

What I've been saying the past thousands years now is that the agent expressing intent is compelled and obstructed in any context because every single thing is determined, he isn't free if it's already determined.

Influence is not compulsion or obstruction. Unless you are a robot or a creature from Mars, I assume you have experience with influence, compulsion and obstruction in your own life, and can tell the difference among them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Influence is not compulsion or obstruction.  Unless you are a robot or a creature from Mars, I assume you have experience with influence, compulsion and obstruction in your own life, and can tell the difference among them.

b-mine

...............................

Meanwhile, influence actually -is- very often compulsion or obstruction in human beings. We know this to be the case even at the trivial level of our human surface, as it were....without knowing (or needing to know) what process may be behind it all. I think it would be interesting to run an experiment, on that question though. I would expect people to have high confidence in answers with low accuracy.

[bennyboy]

-edit for brevity-

Okay, let's say I buy an ice cream. Am I compelled by a chain of deterministic events starting with the Big Bang, and buying the ice cream is my destiny? Maybe, in a sense, though I don't think that's proven or provable. However, at that moment, it is I who reach out, seeking that ice cream due to my nature as a person. If the ice cream is a compulsive force, then I'd be jockeying for position with 1000 other guys, drawn by its bewitching siren's call. But nope. I see a mother and her kid walk right past that ice cream as though it doesn't even exist. The ice cream, it turns out, does not have the power of compulsion-- it's just a food. I am forming an intent and reaching OUT to the ice cream, and it is not imposing itself INTO me. I'm exercising my free will.

Now, let's say I'm walking down the street and a cop tasers me. I fall to the ground. Then another guy walks by, and he gets tasered, too. He also falls to the ground. There was nothing about our personhood, our intent, or our will which had anything to do with either of us falling in pain. We are not acting with any kind of will at all.

No, let's take a heroin addict. He forms intent, on his own, and seeks out heroin. Does his addiction compel him, or is it a part of his nature, and thus his intent and its expression as behavior free will? This is the hardest case, along with the intent of schizophrenics and other dyfunctionals. Is crazy something that happens to you, or is it what you are? Does medication that normalizes your behavior give you BACK free will, or prevent you from forming intent as a free agent? These are the interesting questions-- not whether free will is real, but how we should define the self. In the end, I'd say it's not the free will that will likely turn out to be illusion, but the sense of the self as a thing, and ALL that means-- love, responsibility, etc.

[Little lunch]

So I ask you why you like this flavour of ice-cream and you say it's because you always have done.
And I ask since when and you say since you first tasted that flavour.
And I say why did you first taste that flavour and you say because it was available at a certain time.
Eventually you will forget how it all started but if you had a perfectly recorded history it would go back to your birth and further.
Everything and anything. Like dominos, everything is a link to another link.
If not, then what is driving us? We are just an extension of the big bang (if the big bang is real) and we have 0 free will.
We are no different to rocks. What made that rock decide to erode over time?
It didn't decide and neither do we, but thinking we decide is part of that process due to our complexity.
I haven't heard an argument against this yet. To do so would be to provide an 'outside of the universe force' that makes you decide things outside of the links.
The conversation we are having is not pre-destined because it happened at the time it happened, but if you could reverse time a year from now it would be exactly the same and if not, why not?
That is the evidence that is needed to prove free will exists.

[GrandizerII]

So I ask you why you like this flavour of ice-cream and you say it's because you always have done.
And I ask since when and you say since you first tasted that flavour.
And I say why did you first taste that flavour and you say because it was available at a certain time.
Eventually you will forget how it all started but if you had a perfectly recorded history it would go back to your birth and further.
Everything and anything. Like dominos, everything is a link to another link.
If not, then what is driving us? We are just an extension of the big bang (if the big bang is real) and we have 0 free will.
We are no different to rocks. What made that rock decide to erode over time?
It didn't decide and neither do we, but thinking we decide is part of that process due to our complexity.
I haven't heard an argument against this yet. To do so would be to provide an 'outside of the universe force' that makes you decide things outside of the links.
The conversation we are having is not pre-destined because it happened at the time it happened, but if you could reverse time a year from now it would be exactly the same and if not, why not?
That is the evidence that is needed to prove free will exists.

We do decide, though, unlike a rock. Activities occur in our brains that eventually lead to the formation of decisions. Of course, that's if we're going be the standard definition of "decide" and not some definition I'm unfamiliar with.

[Little lunch]

Ok, ok, forget the rock part.
You have a point but I don't think it changes what I'm saying. What I'm trying to say.
I personally cannot believe in free will until someone gives me the faintest of a reason for why I do things apart from the idea that it's all a natural progression of links that we have no control over. How could that be free will?

[GrandizerII]

Ok, ok, forget the rock part.
You have a point but I don't think it changes what I'm saying. What I'm trying to say.
I personally cannot believe in free will until someone gives me the faintest of a reason for why I do things apart from the idea that it's all a natural progression of links that we have no control over. How could that be free will?

No one here is arguing for that kind of free will, i.e. libertarian free will.

What I'm saying (I'll let bennyboy speak for himself) is that if one is free to make choices in accordance with one's nature, intent, desire, preference, whatever you want to call it, then that indicates a will that can reasonably be considered free.

Free, by the way, is a word that can mean so many different things depending on context. But come to think of it, how are you, and the others arguing similar to you, defining free?

I'm guessing you don't mean:

Free, as in not in jail or prison.

Free, as in not a slave.

Free, as in being granted legal rights and privileges.

Free, as in not costing any amount of money.

Free, as in available.

Free, as in random or spontaneous.

So what is free to you? And following from that, what is free will?

[Little lunch]

I'm saying we are basically automatons. Robots.
I'm saying that if we are free to make decisions of any kind in reality then there is no reason for anything.
So two of those would count.
Not free to do anything random or spontaneous and not free as in we are slaves to nature.
And it would be a horrible thing if it weren't so complex that we can't really tell.
But it eliminates good and evil and it provides reasons for why people other than ourselves do things we don't understand.