(October 12, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Irrational Wrote:(October 12, 2015 at 3:54 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: Pyrrho I don't disagree with you. I've always taken "free will" to mean: "to do as one chooses". You can make a conscious effort to do anything you like, that is free will. This does not mean there are not limitations or consequences. As far as limitations go, you can choose to try to fly, but without a hang glider, your butt is going to die (but you still have the choice to try). As far as consequences, you may choose to beat your neighbor to death because he doesn't turn down his stereo, but you will most certainly spend your life in prison. Still have a choice.
Free will is not complicated. You have the freedom to choose to do whatever is within your ability to do. Quite often where the waters get murky is in discussions regarding original sin and blaming God for how things are etc. We talk about Adam and Eve having free will to choose to disobey and why would God make that possible knowing the consequences, etc. If you were not free to do as you choose, you are an automaton.
If I understand the OP correctly, Pyrrho is not advocating for the view that we are free to choose things independently of our nature and conditioning. So the Christian view of free will is illogical and cannot be demonstrated.
As for the OP's position, fair enough, but one problem I see with this is way too many laymen think of free will in the libertarian sense and not in the sense you speak of. So even if hat makes sense to you, that's not the notion of free will people tend to talk about.
I will go further and say that it is nonsensical to say that one chooses independently of one's nature and conditioning. One chooses in accordance with what one is. If the "choice" had nothing to do with what you are, then in what sense would the it be your choice?
As for your second point, I think that those who try to speak of a "free will" that is "libertarian" are speaking gibberish. They do not properly define their term, nor explain how it is that an action that is not determined makes it "free" and their action, as opposed to some random occurrence. Things that occur randomly are not acts of your will. The action must be in accordance with what you will, or it is not your action. And, to quote myself:
As for why you will what you will, that is not something you control (generally), and it is absurd to say that you do. You do not generally will for your hand to be in a fire due to the nerves in your hand and the signals that are sent to your brain, etc. Or in other words, due to the structure of your body. You did not choose to have a hand in the first place, or nerves, or a brain, etc. That is all due to things prior to your existence. Whether that is due to "determinism" or random chance or whatever, clearly, you did not choose it. Everyone of sense knows that, so why is it that people pretend it is not the case?
So, in short, I think that those of whom you write are confused. Which explains why these threads tend to involve unsatisfactory definitions and tend to never get anywhere. If someone has a coherent definition of "libertarian free will," let them produce it and explain it.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
