If free will was not real

[bennyboy]

Sure it's free.  Nobody is either compelling me or preventing me from expressing my will according to my nature as a person.

I know it doesn't need to be free. But we're talking about free will and we're saying it's not free.

What you said doesn't match with what you quoted.

A sentient agent can't transcend physical limitations, that's why I've been asking, can you or you with your brain break the causal chain?

]
I think literally zero people are arguing the kind of free will you're talking about.

IIRC I pointed it out, that in the everyday life, sure if you want you can say it's free since no one's holding a gun to your head. However if you dig deeper down it's not free at all, that's what people refer to when they're talking about whether or not our will is free. If with free will people meant what you mean the question wouldn't even be asked because the answer would obviously be "of course it's free, no one's holding a gun to my head."

You're right. It's obvious. Nobody would argue against it. Oh. . . . wait a minute. . .

Compatibilist free will was introduced when some people realised that an ultimately free will couldn't exist. Compatibilist free will is irrelevant. The will where you're ultimately free is relevant, maybe not in the everyday life but let's say when you go into a court room. If the murderer literally had no choice at all but to commit what he did because it was determined to happen, is it really correct to sentence him to a lifetime prison or give him the electric chair? Or is it actually morally right to recondition the person so he/she becomes a functional human being that contributes to society in a positive way. This is just an example of why the free will people are talking about isn't your definition of free will because that's irrelevant

"Compatibilist" isn't really a kind of free will. Compatibilism is the philosophical idea that free will can be reconciled with determinism, specifically with determinist brain function. And nothing about our life experience, including the fact that we can freely choose things, is "irrelevant" except to those who want to fit the world into a small world view.

But thinking about it, even by the gun example, your will is still constricted/bound and cannot be changed at all, it will be what it is, so it is still not free. No one's holding a gun to your head, but classical physics got your will chained to itself, it's not free one way or another.

You still aren't working with my definition of either will or free will. I'm not sure to whom you are speaking.