If free will was not real

[RozKek]

I don't know. Try reading some physics. If you're going to claim that the universe isn't deterministic nor random then you're pulling stuff out of your arse. And also, a free will doesn't exist in a deterministic universe nor in a random universe. There's no free if it's already determined and there's no free either if it's completely random.

You've just said what I've already said.  Is this your way of agreeing me, or did you not read those posts?

No, I actually said that even by your definition free will cannot exist, I don't know if you missed it several times or if you decide to ignore it.

Are you saying people cannot form intent?  Are you saying this intent cannot be either obstructed or compelled from the outside?  As far as I can say, it is not possible to argue against either of these points.

You will parrot on that the formation of intent isn't free.  I never said it was, nor did I define it as such.  Nor did I say that anything about a person must be non-deterministic in order for the will to be free.  I said:
WILL is the expression of intent as a behavior.
FREE WILL is the capacity to execute the will without obstruction or compulsion from the outside world.

None of this has anything to do with whether the universe is or isn't deterministic.

Now look, I've already given the remedy to this situation: refuse to debate under my definition of free will.  I've declared that I'm unwilling to debate under yours.  But you keep arguing against positions I don't hold, as though you think I hold them, and it's getting slightly annoying at this point.

Also, EP and Jehanne were supporting my definition of free will afaik and one of the biggest free will debaters, Sam Harris is talking about the free will I am talking about, but you seem to ignore that too and keep telling me my definition of free will isn't debated. Your definition of free will was introduced because some people can't let go of their dear free will so they redefine it in an attempt to keep it.

EP and Jehanne are both arguing under the same definitions you're using.  But nobody is SUPPORTING that definition of free will.  As far as I can tell, Irrational and I are both arguing for one definition, and you all are both arguing against another.  It's the world's most pointless debate

If I debated Sam Harris, who by the way is a Buddhist so probably not your best possible reference, I'd tell him the same thing-- the definition of free will as separate from causation is incoherent.  I'd tell him to read a book by his buddy Dennett.

You know, it was pointed out almost right away that I'm talking about a compatibilist view on free will.  This is true enough, but I'm even taking it a step FURTHER.  It matters completely not at all how the Universe functions under the hood: deterministic, non-deterministic, random, whatever.  So it doesn't even matter to me (as it does to Dennett) whether free will is compatible with a physical monist world view.  What matters is only the capacity to express intent, and that the agent expressing intent is neither compelled nor obstructed in that expression.

You asked me how I know that the universe is deterministic, I answered by telling you to read some physics, what are you on about?

And what I'm saying is even your definition of free will doesn't exist because you are encountering obstruction and compulsion from the outside world because everything is deterministic. In a deterministic world a single butterfly's wing flapping can change your entire thought process in the future. It's not free. So I am fucking arguing against your free will, and I'm not saying it can't be free. Haven't you noticed how severely you have reduced your definition of free will in order to argue it into existence? Also, I asked you why are you free unless a foreign agent is holding a gun to your head? Why a foreign agent? Is there something special about the foreign agent that makes him able to strip away the free from your will? Is the foreign agent also more than particles determined to do whatever they're going to do?

Sam Harris isn't a buddhist nor spiritual, he simply meditates and he has studied buddhism if that makes you think he's a buddhist. And if I'm wrong then my apologies, but that doesn't matter. He doesn't believe in God or any woo bullshit. 

What I've been saying the past thousands years now is that the agent expressing intent is compelled and obstructed in any context because every single thing is determined, he isn't free if it's already determined.

I'd gladly stop debating this. We're going nowhere.

Sam