(July 15, 2016 at 8:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'd simply suggest that a person isn't "free to choose their candy" in any way more meaningful than a computer can "freely will" to turn left or right presented with an intersection or obstruction. Free will always ends up sounding like a triviality, when expressed in this way. Sure, you "freely willed" your candy, so long as the terms free and will aren't all that important or specific. It's so trivial, in this sense, that accepting that you've done so doesn't actually make -me- accept free will.
I'd define freedom as the capacity at a moment to express one's nature in a decision. However, one has only one nature at a given moment, so it's hard to imagine how one can escape the "bonds" of determinism. It's also a strange requirement-- to prove that "X" is really free by forcing it to sometimes behave as "Y" would.
But this seems to be the standard-- that we can go AGAINST our internal influences, especially reflexes and instincts, and behave according to our ideas. So if I'm being tortured, but I can ignore the pain and protect my world view, I'm definitely acting freely. Or if I can put my hand in a fire, and resist pulling it out even though it hurts, surely that would have to be seen as an expression of free will, no?
