(August 1, 2016 at 11:59 am)RozKek Wrote:(August 1, 2016 at 11:39 am)Irrational Wrote: No matter what you feel freedom should be defined as, just remember it's just your perspective. For a more objective answer, then a consensus among rational people should be made as to what is sufficient for a will to have freedom.
Interestingly enough, when we think free in the usual sense, it's almost never defined in the way it is often defined in the context of debates on free will. It's like you've already assumed that libertarian free will is the official definition of free will. But when you look at what the majority of philosophers believe about free will, it's a different definition. And honestly, I'm not sure most laypeople view free will in the libertarian sense either. Has there ever been a systemic poll surveying what laypeople defined free will to be?
It doesn't really matter what other people are debating. Let's say no one is debating the free will I'm talking about, but I am and I think it's important and has a basis in reality. And what gets more objective than physics? I'm using physics, the physical reality and the laws of physics to argue against free will, it doesn't get more objective than that. You're made of particles just like planet earth is, both of you are governed by the laws of physics, both of you are going to move and act only in one possible way, but you can always dream of other things you could've done, sure.
Rozkek, the laws of physics don't tell you what constitutes freedom, though. Come on.