If free will was not real

[RozKek]

Many many people are arguing the kind of free will I'm talking about, yours is irrelevant.

Nobody who SUPPORTS the free will idea is using your definition.  You and several others are strawmanning by sticking to it.  If I'm wrong, then quote someone who is arguing by the definition you're using.

Who cares if a thief is holding a gun to my head, of fucking course by your definition the answer is going to be "well a thief isn't holding a gun to my head therefore I have free will" If the answer was so simple it wouldn't have been a hot topic for three thousands of years. It's only your irrelevant definition that has a simple answer. Also if people aren't debating my definition of free will why are they classified under determinism and indeterministim? Because people generally want to know if it ultimately is their decision. Have you ever watched Sam Harris talk about it? He even mentioned in one of his talks how his friend Daniel Dennett completely shifts the meaning of free will and then says, it exists.

You are making a subtle mistake-- you are treating the brain as part of the environment, and not part of the self.  If the brain makes a decision, that IS the self making a decision.  If the brain can make a decision and ACT on it without compulsion or obstruction from a foreign agent, then the brain is deciding freely.

Will is the expression of intent, a kind of decision, and free will is the capacity to express intent without compulsion or obstruction.  Your definition, the freedom from causality, is incoherent.  Obviously, we like things because of our lives, and this affects our desires and ultimately our intent.  So why would you even argue in a thread about such an incoherent idea of free will?

And usually the compatibilist ideas of free will are dumbed down to "a thief isn't holding a gun to my head = free will, wow! problem solved!"

Only by you.

The free will I'm talking about is much more relevant when you're e.g going to sentence a criminal. That's what people are interested in, if one really ultimately is responsible for his actions. Your definition doesn't adress the question if one is ultimately responsible for ones action i.e if they could've done otherwise. Because if they cannot break the causal chain they couldn't have done otherwise at all, they might've been "capable" to, but what they were going to do was already determined. Your definition doesn't adress that question, that's why it's problematic.

It totally does address it-- in fact, it's perfectly designed to address it-- since will is the expression of intent, and since the law is predicated on intent.  If someone has no intent, then he will be charged with a lesser crime.  If his intent is formed under compulsion-- for example involuntary drug use by someone slipping something in a drink-- leads him to go crazy, he may not be charged with a crime at all.  It doesn't matter whether ultimately we believe his acts were a product of a chain of deterministic events starting at the Big Bang.  What matters is whether he was able to form and act on intent.

That is THE useful definition of free will, and is the only one that is applicable to real world situations like the execution of criminal justice.

In the end, if you can't break the causal chain, every single thing you do was bound to happen, you had no way of doing otherwise therefore your will still isn't free. Free will is an illusion in other words, it feels real, but it isn't real. Your intentions, will, they way you express yourself or intentions, everything is determined. How is it possibly free if it's already determined?

In your view, then, since everything is determined, we should not blame rapists or serial killers-- since they had no chance to act other than they did.  In my view, they formed and acted on improper intent, and must be dealt with.  My view is better than your view.

Nope, go check a Sam Harris debate. He is one of the biggest free will debaters and he debates the free will I'm talking about, go watch his debate if you're interested.

Your brain is part of the environment. What differs you from a planet? Are you a special little snowflake because you're a human? You're built of the same things, you follow the same laws, you are a part of the universe, you're just particles, nothing more.

Why are you free only if you're not being constricted by a foreign agent? Why a foreign agent, can you adress this? You're constrained by the laws of physics. "Will is the expression of intent, a kind of decision, and free will is the capacity to express intent without compulsion or obstruction." Well then, even by your definition a free will doesn't exist. You're constricted by the laws of physics, by the fact that you're physical. I'm still wondering why in order for your will to not be free you must be constricted by a foreign agent.

The way he forms and acts on intent isn't his decision ultimately. Why his intention is to do what he intends to do is not ultimately not his decision either. And it does matter if it traces back to the Big Bang even if it's far fetched, even if you dislike the idea. Even your definition of free will plays by the rules of my definition of free will. Intention, expression everything is ultimately not your decision either. I don't like repeating myself, I've said this several times and you adress it in the exact same way.

Exactly, of course we should hold them responsible but not in same sense we do in the everyday life. It wasn't possible for them to act any other way than they did, we accept that and instead of giving them the electric chair or lifetime prison it would be correct if we instead reconditioned their brains so their intentions become good and make them contribute to society in a positive way. The did form and act on improper intent. But the way they formed, the way the acted, and their intention, none of that was ultimately under their control. It doesn't matter if you think your view is better than my view. Your view is not correct, therefore we don't go by your view.